Yarbrough v. Carter

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtMAYFIELD, J.
Citation179 Ala. 356,60 So. 833
PartiesYARBROUGH v. CARTER.
Decision Date21 January 1913

60 So. 833

179 Ala. 356

YARBROUGH
v.
CARTER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 21, 1913


Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1913.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. C. Crowe, Judge.

Action by W. J. Carter against H. F. Yarbrough. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The first count of the complaint is that plaintiff claims of defendant the sum of $10,000 as damages for that on, to wit, the 27th day of September, 1911, the defendant wantonly or willfully injured plaintiff by causing an automobile to run over, upon, or against plaintiff, severely injuring him, and that as a proximate result of said injury he has suffered and will suffer, etc. The demurrers raise the proposition that the count fails to state a cause of action for wanton or willful injuries. The evidence tended to show that near the terminal station of Birmingham, on one of the streets, an automobile running between 25 and 40 miles an hour struck the plaintiff, throwing him up in the air, and rendering him unconscious, and partially running over him. It further appeared from the tendencies of the evidence that no signals were given of the approach of the automobile, and that it was being run by Otis Wheeler, who was in the employ of Mr. Yarbrough, the defendant in this case, who was in the machine and who was the owner of the machine. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the machine was not going more than 7 or 8 miles an hour, and that the plaintiff stepped out in front of it in close proximity to it, and was hit before the machine could be stopped.

Lamkin & Watts, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Black & Davis, of Birmingham, for appellee.

MAYFIELD, J.

Count 1 of the complaint as amended states a good cause of action as for willful or wanton injury, and was not subject to the demurrers interposed. The count alleges in terms that the injury complained of was wantonly or willfully inflicted by causing an automobile to run over or against the plaintiff. Such averments have been repeatedly held sufficient by this court, and distinguished from that line of cases, cited and relied on by appellant, in which the counts attempt to set forth the facts relied upon to show wanton or willful injury, when such facts so set forth do not support the conclusion of the pleader as to wantonness or willfulness. 6 Mayf. Dig. 669.

The court properly declined to give the charges requested by the defendant. One was in effect, and the other in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Gantt, 8 Div. 533.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 8, 1923
    ...Carpenter, 194 Ala. 141, 69 So. 626; Birmingham Ry. & Elect. Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 279, 60 So. 262; Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 357, 60 So. 833; Edwards v. Earnest, 206 Ala. 1, 89 So. 729, 22 A. L. R. 1387. After careful consideration, we adhere to our opinion in respect to the motion ......
  • Pridgen v. Head, 4 Div. 247
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 15, 1968
    ...of action for wanton injury is based on the following cases: Buffalo Rock Co. v. Davis, 228 Ala. 603, 154 So. 556; Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 356, 60 So. 833; Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Cusimano, 206 Ala. 689, 91 So. 779; Brooks v. Liebert, 250 Ala. 142, 33 So.2d 321; Graham v. Welfel......
  • Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Cusimano, 6 Div. 146.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 27, 1921
    ...proximate result thereof plaintiff suffered the injuries," etc. This count is almost in the exact words of count 1 in Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 356, 60 So. 833, approved by this court. The real difference between the two counts is: The count in this case charges that defendant's servant......
  • Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Grauer, 2 Div. 830
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 6, 1924
    ...of its violation, as the basis for an inference of the character of the act concerning which complaint is made. Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 356, 60 So. 833; B., E. & B.R.R. Co. v. Williams, 190 Ala. 53, 66 So. 653; A.G.S.R. Co. v. Bell, 200 Ala. 562, 76 So. 920, L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Lloyd, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Gantt, 8 Div. 533.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 8, 1923
    ...Carpenter, 194 Ala. 141, 69 So. 626; Birmingham Ry. & Elect. Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 279, 60 So. 262; Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 357, 60 So. 833; Edwards v. Earnest, 206 Ala. 1, 89 So. 729, 22 A. L. R. 1387. After careful consideration, we adhere to our opinion in respect to the motion ......
  • Pridgen v. Head, 4 Div. 247
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 15, 1968
    ...of action for wanton injury is based on the following cases: Buffalo Rock Co. v. Davis, 228 Ala. 603, 154 So. 556; Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 356, 60 So. 833; Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Cusimano, 206 Ala. 689, 91 So. 779; Brooks v. Liebert, 250 Ala. 142, 33 So.2d 321; Graham v. Welfel......
  • Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Cusimano, 6 Div. 146.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 27, 1921
    ...proximate result thereof plaintiff suffered the injuries," etc. This count is almost in the exact words of count 1 in Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 356, 60 So. 833, approved by this court. The real difference between the two counts is: The count in this case charges that defendant's servant......
  • Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Grauer, 2 Div. 830
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 6, 1924
    ...of its violation, as the basis for an inference of the character of the act concerning which complaint is made. Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 356, 60 So. 833; B., E. & B.R.R. Co. v. Williams, 190 Ala. 53, 66 So. 653; A.G.S.R. Co. v. Bell, 200 Ala. 562, 76 So. 920, L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Lloyd, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT