Tillery v. Walker
| Decision Date | 30 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 966 |
| Citation | 216 Ala. 676,114 So. 137 |
| Parties | TILLERY v. WALKER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster, Judge.
Action by Maude Walker against John W. Tillery. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Affirmed.
William M. Adams, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Reuben H. Wright, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
Appellee suffered injuries from a collision with an automobile driven by appellant and had a judgment for damages in this cause. Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint were not subject to the demurrers interposed by appellant. The allegation is that the accident in suit happened at or near the intersection of Twenty-Third avenue and Seventh street in the city of Tuscaloosa, Ala. This was a sufficient allegation of the locus in quo and gave appellant defendant due notice of the place in question.
Quite a number of charges were refused to appellant and the rulings thus shown are assigned for error in bulk. By such assignment appellant assumed the burden of showing that each and every of the charges should have been given. Some of them, to say the least, failed to observe the rule, prevailing in this state, that a pedestrian crossing a street is not under the same duty as one who crosses a railroad track to stop and look and listen, though, of course, he must exercise such reasonable care as the attending circumstances may require. Ivy v. Marx, 205 Ala. 60, 87 So. 813, 14 A.L.R. 1173; Barbour v. Shebor, 177 Ala. 304, 58 So. 276, and authorities cited.
The evidence was in patent conflict as to where rested the blame for the accident. The question of appellant's liability was therefore one for jury decision, and the general charge requested by appellant was properly refused.
The judgment must be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birmingham Stove & Range Co. v. Vanderford
...by way of amendment. The place of the alleged injury is sufficiently indicated. Gray v. Cooper, 216 Ala. 684, 114 So. 139; Tillery v. Walker, 216 Ala. 676, 114 So. 137; Ruffin C. & T. Co. v. Rich, 214 Ala. 633, 108 596. The averment that said servant, agent, or employee negligently operated......
-
Wayland Distributing Co. v. Gay
...Shebor, 177 Ala. 304, 58 So. 276; Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala. 97, 115, 59 So. 597; Ivy v. Marx, 205 Ala. 60, 62, 87 So. 813; Tillery v. Walker, 216 Ala. 676, 114 So. 137. Therefore the stop, look and listen law is no defense in this We calculate from the plat or diagram introduced in evidence......
-
Lusk v. Wade
...them should have been given, the appellant can take nothing by this assignment. White v. Henry, 255 Ala. 7, 49 So.2d 779; Tillery v. Walker, 216 Ala. 676, 114 So. 137; Snellings v. Jones, 33 Ala.App. 301, 33 So.2d 371; City of Bessemer v. Whaley, 10 Ala.App. 569, 65 So. 691; Jordan v. Rice,......
-
Kingry v. McCardle, 4 Div. 857
...was not a trespasser, and was at a place where the appellant owed him a duty. Ruffin Coal & Transfer Co. v. Rich, supra; Tillery v. Walker, 216 Ala. 676, 114 So. 137; Plylar v. Jones, 207 Ala. 372, 92 So. 445. 'The substantive law of torts in this state would subject a defendant to liabilit......