Williams v. City of Anniston
| Decision Date | 03 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 107 |
| Citation | 58 So.2d 115,257 Ala. 191 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. CITY OF ANNISTON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles Douglass and Guy Sparks, Anniston, for appellant.
Emerson & Watson, Anniston, for appellee.
This is a suit instituted by Mrs. Willie Williams against the City of Anniston, a municipal corporation, for damages alleged to have been suffered by her from a fall over a defect in a sidewalk in the city about 7:30 p. m. on the night of December 9, 1948. It is claimed that the defect consisted of a break across the sidewalk apparently caused by the roots of a tree. The defendant pleaded the general issue and contributory negligence. The case was submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict for the defendant. Hence Mrs. Willie Williams brings this appeal.
According to an affidavit attached to and in support of a motion for a new trial counsel for defendant made the following statement in substance to the jury:
According to an affidavit filed by the attorney for the defendant, he made, among other statements, the following statement in substance.
'I stated that the city has no money of its own, that what money it has is derived from taxes imposed on its citizens, that all governmental services and improvements depend on tax revenues, that they don't just happen by themselves, that this courthouse and all other government improvements are built with money furnished by the taxpayers, that any money which the jury might award to the plaintiff would have to come out of the City Treasury, and that police protection, fire protection, the widening and improving of streets, our schools, and all other city services and functions are dependent on the City Treasury which receives its money from the taxpayers.'
The record shows that the argument of counsel was made in a series of statements to the jury which have been consolidated in the affidavits referred to above. Each of the statements was objected to by counsel for the plaintiff at the time the statement was made to the jury and in each instance the court overruled the objection. These rulings of course indicated to the jury that the argument was within legitimate bounds. American Ry. Express Company v. Reid, 216 Ala. 479, 113 So. 507.
We have carefully considered the argument which counsel for the defendant was allowed to make in the defendant's behalf to the jury. These statements are obviously an appeal to the self-interest of the jurors as taxpayers and are of such a prejudicial nature as to constitute a ground for reversal. 78 A.L.R. page 1457; Piner v. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, 163 S.C. 302, 161 S.E. 504; Robinson v. United States, 8 Cir., 32 F.2d 505, 66 A.L.R. 468; Parks v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 378, 33 S.W. 872; Davis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 55 S.W. 340.
In effect counsel for the defendant told the members of the jury that if they gave the plaintiff a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...upon appeal is not that the argument did unlawfully influence the jury, but whether it might have done so." Williams v. City of Anniston, 257 Ala. 191, 193, 58 So.2d 115, 117 (1952). See also Estis Trucking Co. v. Hammond, 387 So.2d 768 (Ala.1980), and Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty In......
-
McLaney v. Turner
...because the trial judge made the foregoing explanation concerning argument of a kind held improper in the case of Williams v. City of Anniston, 257 Ala. 191, 58 So.2d 115. Assignments 45 and 46 are to the effect that the court erred to a reversal in instructing the jury that if the law as s......
-
St. Clair County v. Bukacek
...self-interest of the jurors as taxpayers is of such a prejudicial nature that it constitutes a ground for reversal. Williams v. City of Anniston, 257 Ala. 191, 58 So.2d 115. The entire statement made here shows on its face that it was reply in kind to improper argument first made by counsel......
-
McLemore v. International Union, United Auto., Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America, C.I.O., 8 Div. 814
...was not excessive and hence was not the result of improper argument'. This same argument was made in the case of Williams v. City of Anniston, 257 Ala. 191, 58 So.2d 115, 117, wherein we 'The test, however, is not that the argument did unlawfully influence the verdict, but that it might hav......