TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Birmingham Sterling Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Bradley

Birmingham Sterling Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Bradley.

Birmingham Sterling Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Bradley, 194 So. 663 (Ala. 1940)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 14, 1940
Docket
No. 6 Div. 640.
Judges
Brown, Anderson, Thomas, Knight
Citations
194 So. 663239 Ala. 2401940 Ala. LEXIS 91

Opinion of the Court — Brown

BROWN, Justice.

Action on the case by the mother to recover damages resulting to her from an injury to her minor son, in the loss of service, and expense in time and 'money in the treatment of his injuries. .

*241 The injuries resulted from a collision between the defendant’s truck driven by its agent, Smith, and a motorcycle in the posséssion of the plaintiff’s son, Willie Lee Hardy, at the intersection of Eighteenth Street — a part of the "Montgomery Highway out of Birmingham- — and Twenty-Ninth Avenue in Homewood. The case went to the jury on count A ascribing the injury to the negligence of the defendant’s servant or agent, and the defendant’s pleas, the general issue and contributory negligence, pleaded in short by consent. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $633, followed by judgment, after motion for new trial overruled.

The evidence, to say the least, was in sharp conflict on both the issue of negligence and contributory negligence, the evidence preponderating in defendant’s favor. The closing argument of plaintiff’s counsel set out in full in the bill of exceptions is interlaced with statements of facts, not supported by the evidence, which tended to overbalance the preponderancy in the evidence, and some of the statements were not only improper, but were ineradicable.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the motion for new trial should have been granted, and that the circuit court erred in its denial. Crotwell et al. v. Cowan, et al., 236 Ala. 578 , 184 So. 195 ; American Ry. Express Co. et al. v. Reid, 216 Ala. 479 , 113 So. 507 ; Moore v. Holroyd, 219 Ala 392, 122 So. 349 .

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed; the motion for new trial granted; and the cause is restored to the trial docket in the circuit court for further proceeding thereon.

Reversed, rendered and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Reid, 113 So. 507 (Ala. 1927) 61
Crotwell v. Cowan, 184 So. 195 (Ala. 1938) 18
Moore v. Holroyd, 122 So. 349 (Ala. 1929) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list