Smith v. Roland, 4 Div. 260.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtBROWN, Justice.
Citation243 Ala. 400,10 So.2d 367
PartiesSMITH v. ROLAND.
Decision Date08 October 1942
Docket Number4 Div. 260.

10 So.2d 367

243 Ala. 400

SMITH
v.
ROLAND.

4 Div. 260.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 8, 1942


Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1942.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; D. C. Halstead, Judge.

Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1940, Tit. 13,§ 102.

W. L. Lee and Alto V. Lee, III, both of Dothan, for appellant.

W. G. Hardwick, of Dothan, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

This is an action on the case by the administratrix of Howard Roland, deceased, under the homicide act, Code 1940, T. 7, § 123, as modified by the "Guest Law," Code [243 Ala. 401] 1940, T. 36, § 95, against the owner of a motor vehicle on which said Roland was riding at the time of his death as a guest or invitee.

The case went to the jury on count 8 of the complaint as last amended and the evidence offered by the plaintiff. The defendant offered no evidence, but requested the affirmative charge in writing which was refused.

Said count eight charges "that Henry Smith at said time and place wantonly injured said plaintiff's intestate by wantonly causing said truck to collide with a truck driven by J. Williard Whiddon, and as a proximate consequence of said wanton conduct the Plaintiff avers that her intestate received injuries causing his death." The defendant pleaded the general issue.

Said intestate and Lenard Watkins were riding on the rear of the defendant's logging truck, intestate sitting near the bolster.

The evidence goes to show that while passing Whiddon's truck on the bridge or just after the defendant's truck passed off the bridge, defendant in attempting to pull his truck further to the right, caused the bolster to swing arount and strike intestate, or that the Whiddon truck as it passed came in contact with the bolster and threw it around striking intestate. Said intestate was carried to the hospital in Dothan and there died as the result of his injuries.

Said Watkins testified: "I was riding on a truck driven by Henry Smith when there was an accident. We left Dothan around 5:30 o'clock that afternoon and it was not quite dark. After leaving we went to a saw mill and stayed for a while and it did not get dark before we left the saw mill and started home. We were riding on the [10 So.2d 368] Dothan-Panama City highway, towards home and Howard Roland was on the truck with me. We were sitting on the back of the truck and Henry Smith and his wife were in the front. There was a bolster on the truck but I do not know how wide it was. I was not sitting on it. The bolster extended all the way across the truck and Howard Roland and I were sitting about as far from here to the Judge's desk from it, sitting on a piece of rail. When we were riding down the highway we had an accident somewhere about a bridge over Chipola Creek. It was around seven or eight miles from Dothan. I heard a noise and about that time something knocked me off the truck. I fell to the pavement and at the time I was knocked off the truck we met another truck. The truck that I was on did not come in contact with the truck that we met. I do not know what knocked me off the truck but reckon it was the bolster as there was a jolt of the truck. Just before I hit the ground there was a collision between the truck on which I was riding and the truck we met. I don't know anything about the other truck but do know that I hit the dirt. I got up and the truck stopped up the road but I do not know how far. I got back on then and I went on up to the store and called an ambulance down there and the ambulance got us and brought us back to the hospital here in Dothan.

"All I know is the truck hit the bolster and I reckon it hit Mr. Roland. The truck that we met had hit the bolster and Henry Smith was driving at the time. I think we had gotten off the bridge when it happened as that was where I was on the road.

"It was dark when the accident happened and I was on Mr. Smith's truck behind the cab. I was facing in the direction in which the truck was going and was sitting down on a little railing. The bolster was across behind me and we had just crossed the bridge down there over Chipola Creek. There are guard rails down there on the highway and I do not know whether the truck was still in those guard rails or not. We had just crossed over the bridge and the other truck was coming from the South coming up on the bridge and no part of it hit Mr. Smith's truck except the bolster. No part of the body came in contact with the truck and I was knocked off on the ground about the time it hit the corner of the bolster. The other truck kept going and did not stop. Mr. Smith stopped his truck and I got back on. Mr. Roland was not knocked off the truck and we took him on down to Rehobeth and called the ambulance. I know where Manie Powell lives and we had stopped at his house about a quarter or one-half mile from the creek before the accident. From where we stopped to where the accident happened Mr. Smith was driving about twenty-five or thirty miles an hour and was on his side of the road. The body of the other truck hit the bolster.

"* * * I can look at a speedometer and tell how fast one is running but did not see the speedometer on the truck that night. I thought it was running about twenty-five [243 Ala. 402] or thirty miles an hour. The guard rails on each side of the bridge and the embankment there lead up to the bridge and I could not tell whether the truck we met was on its side of the road. I could see the line down the center of the road but was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Civil Action No. 09–7257.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • August 24, 2011
    ...... with reckless indifference to [these] consequences.” Miller v. Bailey, 60 So.3d 857, 867 (Ala.2010) (quoting Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 10 So.2d 367, 369 (1942)). As noted above, Plaintiff in this case has pointed to evidence showing that Radiator knew that the Raffinate it used to ......
  • Browning v. Shackelford, No. 44255
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 13, 1967
    ...The Alabama court has drawn a distinction between what constitutes gross negligence and willful or wanton misconduct. In Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 403, 10 So.2d 367, 369-370 (1942), the Alabama Supreme Court 'Gross negligence' is negligence, not wantonness. 'Before one can be convicted......
  • Smith v. Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y., No. 21314
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 25, 1960
    ...and the only case to which we are cited which could support defendant's contention that there was a lack of wantonness is Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 10 So.2d 367, decided in 1942. There, in an action for the death of a guest or invitee in defendant's truck, the evidence was held insuffi......
  • Lankford v. Mong, 7 Div. 707
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 12, 1968
    ...So. 848; Griffin Lumber Co. v. Harper, 247 Ala. 616, 25 So.2d 505; W. S. Fowler Rental Equipment Co. v. Skipper, supra; Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 10 So.2d 367. But knowledge need not be shown by direct proof. It may be made to appear, like any other fact, by showing circumstances from ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Civil Action No. 09–7257.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • August 24, 2011
    ...... with reckless indifference to [these] consequences.” Miller v. Bailey, 60 So.3d 857, 867 (Ala.2010) (quoting Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 10 So.2d 367, 369 (1942)). As noted above, Plaintiff in this case has pointed to evidence showing that Radiator knew that the Raffinate it used to ......
  • Browning v. Shackelford, No. 44255
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 13, 1967
    ...The Alabama court has drawn a distinction between what constitutes gross negligence and willful or wanton misconduct. In Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 403, 10 So.2d 367, 369-370 (1942), the Alabama Supreme Court 'Gross negligence' is negligence, not wantonness. 'Before one can be convicted......
  • Smith v. Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y., No. 21314
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 25, 1960
    ...and the only case to which we are cited which could support defendant's contention that there was a lack of wantonness is Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 10 So.2d 367, decided in 1942. There, in an action for the death of a guest or invitee in defendant's truck, the evidence was held insuffi......
  • Lankford v. Mong, 7 Div. 707
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 12, 1968
    ...So. 848; Griffin Lumber Co. v. Harper, 247 Ala. 616, 25 So.2d 505; W. S. Fowler Rental Equipment Co. v. Skipper, supra; Smith v. Roland, 243 Ala. 400, 10 So.2d 367. But knowledge need not be shown by direct proof. It may be made to appear, like any other fact, by showing circumstances from ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT