Trawick v. Pargo, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1964
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 201
• Citation: Trawick v. Pargo, Inc., 169 So.2d 19, 277 Ala. 254 (Ala. 1964)
• Parties: Thomas W. TRAWICK v. PARGO, INCORPORATED et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 19

169 So.2d 19

277 Ala. 254

Thomas W. TRAWICK v. PARGO, INCORPORATED et al.

1 Div. 201.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 19, 1964.

Wilters & Brantley, Bay Minette, for appellant.

J. B. Blackburn, Bay Minette, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by plaintiff in the court below from a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Baldwin County, in favor of defendants, Pargo, Incorporated, a corporation, and Joseph B. Burch, III. The judgment was based on a jury's verdict directed for defendants by the trial judge, because the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to sustain his allegation of negligence.

The complaint was amended by striking Lake Forest, Incorporated, against whom count two, as amended, was directed. When this defendant was stricken count two was in effect stricken, leaving only count one, as amended, for consideration.

Plaintiff in count one sought damages for personal injuries he received when an electric golf cart he had co-rented and was occupying with another co-renter overturned while in motion on the golf course at Lake Forest Country Club. The plaintiff alleged that defendants (appellees) negligently rented said cart to plaintiff with the brakes thereon in a defective and dangerous condition, and as a proximate consequence of said negligence he suffered certain personal injuries that were catalogued in the complaint.

Several assignments of error appear in the record, but only one is insisted on. This assignment charges error on the part of the court in directing the jury (without hypothesis) to return a verdict for the defendants. We have consistently held that assignments of error not sufficiently argued are waived. McGehee v. Frost, 268 Ala. 23, 24, 104 So.2d 905(1).

We are impelled to pretermit consideration of the one assignment referred to in appellant's brief because, first, appellant failed to observe the mandate of subsection (b) of Rule 9, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, effective June 1, 1955, 261 Ala. XIX, XXII, which requires '* * * a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form so as to present the substance clearly and concisely, referring to the pages of the transcript, and if the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding, in fact or law, is assigned, then the statement shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness in narrative form bearing on the points in issue so to fully present the substance of the testimony of the witness clearly and concisely; * * *.' This recital...