Williamson v. Birmingham Transit Corp.
| Citation | 344 So.2d 489 |
| Parties | Evelyn Douglas WILLIAMSON et al. v. BIRMINGHAM TRANSIT CORPORATION. SC, 1971. |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1977 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Duncan Y. Manley of Rives, Peterson, Conway, Elliott & Small, Birmingham, for appellants.
William C. Knight, Jr., and William F. Murray, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee.
In this negligence action we will determine whether there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury the question of proximate cause. We hold there was not and affirm action of the trial court directing a verdict in favor of defendant.
This action arises because of a collision between a bus operated by the Birmingham Transit Corporation and a tractor-trailer owned by R. A. Chambers and operated by Hollis Chambers, all defendants below. Mrs. Williamson was a passenger on the bus and alleges she sustained injuries when it was rear-ended by the truck. On the date of the accident the truck had been following directly behind the bus for quite some distance, in very heavy traffic. Just before the collision the bus stopped for traffic, which was backed up from an intersection toward which the bus was traveling. When the traffic light at the intersection changed and traffic went ahead, the bus moved forward about one and one-half bus lengths and made a stop to take on two passengers. Testimony indicates that the bus had been stopped for 30 to 60 seconds and both passengers had boarded the bus when impact occurred. The bus was moved forward approximately three feet as a result of the collision. Mrs. Williamson alleges she was knocked from her seat to the floor, sustaining various injuries. She filed suit, claiming $20,000 as damages, and alleging all three defendants were negligent. Her husband filed a derivative suit for $5,000. The two actions were consolidated For trial only.
At the conclusion of plaintiffs' testimony, Birmingham Transit filed motion for directed verdict and it was granted. The case was submitted to the jury as to the Chambers defendants and the jury returned verdicts in favor of Mrs. Williamson and her husband. Separate judgments were entered on those verdicts and on the verdicts in favor of Birmingham Transit Corporation. The Williamsons filed one notice of appeal, attempting to appeal from the separate judgments. We need not decide whether the one notice of appeal is sufficient under Rule 4(a), ARAP. The amount claimed by Mr. Williamson, in his action, is under $10,000; as a consequence this court has no jurisdiction. Code of Ala., Tit. 13, § 111(3).
The Williamsons based their case against Birmingham, Transit on the theory that by stopping to take on passengers at a place not designated as a 'Bus Stop' and marked with a 'No Parking' sign, the Transit Company violated certain provisions of the Birmingham City Code, therefore guilty of negligence as a matter of law. They further contend that this negligence, at least, concurred with that of the Chambers to proximately cause the collision, if indeed, that negligence was not the sole proximate cause of the accident.
The evidence in this case will not support the conclusion that negligence of Birmingham Transit, if any, was the proximate cause of the accident. The Bus driver testified that after the accident the Truck driver stated, 'I just got into the rear of your bus.' According to the police officer who investigated the accident, the truck driver stated '* * * he was going at a slow rate of speed behind the bus, looked off momentarily, and when he looked back he was in the rear of it * * * It was too late for him to stop.' The truck driver testified he had been following the bus for some distance, in bumper-to-bumper traffic; had stopped for traffic several times behind the bus; that he looked away from the bus as traffic began to move forward on the last occasion and ran into the rear of the bus. There is no evidence the bus made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Regency Development Co., Inc.
...reached this court and the cases should have thereupon been transferred to the Court of Civil Appeals. See Williamson v. Birmingham Transit Corp., 344 So.2d 489 (Ala.1977); cf. Great Central Insurance Company v. Edge, 292 Ala. 613, 298 So.2d 607 (1974). Under this state of the law, anytime ......
-
City of Mobile v. Largay
...rule is not applicable when the evidence establishes no reasonable inference in support of a plaintiff's claim. Williamson v. Birmingham Transit Corp., 344 So.2d 489 (Ala.1977). Where the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom a motion for a directed ver......
-
Gotlieb v. Klotzman
... ... Brown, of Sirote, Permutt, Friend, Friedman, Held & Apolinsky, Birmingham, for appellants ... Edward O. Conerly, Birmingham, for ... ...
-
Parris v. Ballantine
... ... Phillip Luke of Mudd, Bolvig, Luke & Wells, LLC, Birmingham; and Mark E. Hoffman, Birmingham, for appellants. C. Fred Daniels and ... Corp. v. First Amfed Corp. , 607 So. 2d 184, 186 (Ala. 1992) (quoting Vainrib ... ...