Wall v. Cotton
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 343,115 So. 690 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 654 |
| Parties | WALL v. COTTON et al. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied March 6, 1928
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; R.T. Goodwyn, Special Judge.
Action by R.F. Wall against M.L. Cotton and Houston Cotton for damages to an automobile. From a judgment for defendants plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Holley & Milner, of Wetumpka, for appellant.
Huddleston & Glover, of Wetumpka, for appellees.
There is much pleading and many exceptions to rulings of the court both on the pleadings and the admission of evidence. As we view this record, all these rulings may be ignored as being immaterial. Whatever the rulings may have been the result of the trial must have been the same.
The damages claimed were for the negligent injury to plaintiff's automobile by reason of it having been struck by defendants' truck. The evidence discloses, without conflict, that defendants' truck was being operated upon the Wetumpka-Tallassee Highway at night, and without complying with section 6264 of the Code of 1923, which provides that "during the period from one half hour after sunset to one half hour before sunrise" a person operating an automobile on the public highways of this State shall "display at least two lighted lamps on the front and one on the rear of such vehicle." This the defendant did not do, and the operation of the truck in open violation of a statute is per se actionable negligence and renders the defendant liable for all damages arising as a proximate result. Watts v. Montgomery Transfer Co., 175 Ala 103, 57 So. 471.
The question of proximate cause is usually for the jury to be determined from the facts, but where as here the fact of proximate cause is apparent, the question is for the court and if the plaintiff had himself been free from contributing negligence the right of recovery would have been clear and the jury would only have been left the duty of assessing the proper damage.
On the other hand, it is equally clear from the evidence that the plaintiff was himself guilty of a negligence and a violation of the same statute above referred to, and that this negligence and violation proximately contributed to the injury to his property. According to the evidence, the highway at the point of the collision did not exceed 20 feet it was on a fill 2 feet high; the plaintiff's car was left in the highway at night without lights...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettes v. Jones.
...v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 141 Kan. 796, 44 P.(2d) 234; Riley v. Guthrie, 218 Iowa, 422, 255 N.W. 502; Wall v. Cotton et al., 22 Ala.App. 343, 115 So. 690. And see Russell v. Davis, 38 N.M. 533, 37 P.(2d) 536, as to standards of conduct and reciprocal duties of those who travel the......
-
Pettes v. Jones
...v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 141 Kan. 796, 44 P.2d 234; Riley v. Guthrie, 218 Iowa 422, 255 N.W. 502; Wall v. Cotton et al., 22 Ala.App. 343, 115 So. 690. And see Russell v. Davis, 38 N.M. 533, 37 P.2d 536, as to standards of conduct and reciprocal duties of those who travel the high......
-
Vernon v. State
...... more than thirty sections of the Code. Purely academic. questions are not considered on appeal. Wall v. Cotton,. et al., 22 Ala.App. 343, 115 So. 690. We may say,. however, that the constitutionality of what is commonly known. as the "secret ......
-
Robert v. Wells
...... a public highway a motor vehicle without lights visible from. the rear, see: Annotation, 92 A.L.R. 691; Wall v. Cotton, 22 Ala.App. 343, 115 So. 690; Page v. Neiland, 40 Ohio App. 141, 178 N.E. 710; Jacobs v. Moniz, 288 Mass. 102, 192 N.E. 515; Walker v. ......