Watts v. Montgomery Traction Co.
Decision Date | 18 January 1912 |
Citation | 175 Ala. 102,57 So. 471 |
Parties | WATTS v. MONTGOMERY TRACTION CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.
Action by Edw. S. Watts against the Montgomery Traction Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The action was for damages to an automobile, caused by the automobile being struck by a car and demolished; the automobile at the time being run ahead of the car and in the same direction as the car.
Plea 8 is as follows:
The fifth ground of demurrer was that the ordinance referred to was not passed, according to the averments of said plea, for the benefit of the defendant, or its employés engaged in the business of the defendant.
J. T Letcher, for appellant.
Ray Rushton and W. M. Williams, for appellee.
The decisions as to the legal effect of violating a statute or ordinance are not harmonious. In some cases it is held that such violation is not negligence per se, but that it is competent evidence of negligence, and may be sufficient to justify a jury in finding negligence in fact. 29 Cyc. 437 and cases cited in note. However, it is settled in Alabama, and we think it is the weight of authority, that a violation of a statute or an ordinance is negligence per se, and a person proximately injured thereby may recover for such injuries against the violator of the law. Kansas City R. R. v. Flippo, 138 Ala. 487, 35 So. 457; Sloss-Sheffield Co. v. Sharp, 156 Ala. 289, 47 So. 279; Wise v. Morgan, 101 Tenn. 273, 48 S.W. 971, 44 L. R. A. 548; Parker v. Barnard, 135 Mass. 116, 46 Am. Rep. 450; Newcomb v. Boston Prot. Dpmt., 146 Mass. 596, 16 N.E. 555, 4 Am. St. Rep. 354; Terre Haute R. R. v. Williams, 172 Ill. 379, 50 N.E. 116, 64 Am. St. Rep. 44; Rosse v. St. Paul R. R., 68 Minn. 216, 71 N.W. 20, 37 L. R. A. 591, 64 Am. St. Rep. 472.
We are not cited to and have found no Alabama case where the violation of a statute or ordinance by the injured party was pleaded by the defendant by way of contributory negligence yet we see no reason why such a violation, if proximately causing the injury complained of, cannot be set up as a defense to the simple negligence charged in the complaint. Such a defense has been approved, and we think properly so, in the cases of Broschart v. Tuttle, 59 Conn. 1, 21 A. 925, 11 L. R. A. 33; Weller v. Chicago R. R., 120 Mo. 635, 23 S.W. 1061. The statute or ordinance violated, however, must have been enacted for the benefit of the party who seeks to invoke its violation as distinguished from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donnell v. Elgin Ry Co
...negligence per se. E.g., San Antonio & A.R.R. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U.S. 476, 484, 36 S.Ct. 626, 629, 60 L.Ed. 1110; Watts v. Montgomery Traction Co., 175 Ala. 102, 57 So. 471; Evans v. Klusmeyer, 301 Mo. 352, 359, 256 S.W. 1036, 1037-1038. It is not uncommon that within the same jurisdiction ......
-
Merback v. Blanchard, 2151
... ... Berry (Ala.) 134 ... So. 868. The violation of a statute constitutes negligence ... Watts v. Montgomery Traction Company (Ala.) 57 So ... 471. Where there is a conflict of evidence on ... ...
-
Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville
... ... riding along a public highway, commonly known as the ... Montgomery Highway, at a point approximately three miles ... south from the town of Clanton, in Chilton ... seeks to invoke its violation, said the court. Watts v ... Montgomery Traction Co., 175 Ala. 102, 57 So. 471 ... In ... Garrett v. L. & ... ...
-
Underwood v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co.
...statute is intended to apply for the benefit of the defendant in the situation wherein the plaintiff was injured. Watts v. Montgomery Traction Co., 175 Ala. 102, 57 So. 471; Town of Remington v. Hesler, 111 Ind.App. 404, 41 N.E.2d 657; 38 Am.Jur. 877, § 196; 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 127, p. T......