Aetna Accident & Liability Co. v. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Aetna Accident & Liability Co. v. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co.

73 So. 383, 198 Ala. 72, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 170

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 7, 1916·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

This is an action to recover for damage done to an automobile in a collision with one of defendant’s cars, due, as alleged, to the negligence of defendant or its servants. The undisputed evidence shows that the damage to the car, resulting directly from the collision, was at least $600. The jury found for the plaintiff, but they awarded as damages the scarcely more than nominal sum of $20. Plaintiff moved to set aside the [73] verdict and judgment on the ground, among others, that “if entitled to recover at all, it was entitled to recover more than $20.” This motion was overruled, and that action is now assigned for error.

(1) In accordance with the law as settled in this state and elsewhere, planitiff’s motion should have been granted.—Hardeman v. Williams, 157 Ala. 422, 48 South. 108; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Street, 164 Ala. 155, 51 South. 306, 20 Ann. Cas. 877; Moseley v. Jamison, 68 Miss. 336, 8 South. 744; 4 Sedg. on Dam. (9th Ed.) § 1368; 29 Cyc. 847, c, and numerous cases cited.

(2) If there were any dispute as to the amount of damages suffered, we would hesitate to reverse the judgment of the trial court on such a motion. But, there being no dispute, it is our duty to render here the judgment which should have been rendered below, granting a new trial, and it is so ordered.

Judgment reversed, motion to set aside verdict, and judgment granted, and the cause remanded.

Reversed, rendered," and remanded.

McClellan, Mayfield, and Thomas, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SOMERVILLE, J.

This is an action to recover for damage done to an automobile in a collision with one of defendant’s cars, due, as alleged, to the negligence of defendant or its servants. The undisputed evidence shows that the damage to the car, resulting directly from the collision, was at least $600. The jury found for the plaintiff, but they awarded as damages the scarcely more than nominal sum of $20. Plaintiff moved to set aside the [73] verdict and judgment on the ground, among others, that “if entitled to recover at all, it was entitled to recover more than $20.” This motion was overruled, and that action is now assigned for error.

(1) In accordance with the law as settled in this state and elsewhere, planitiff’s motion should have been granted.—Hardeman v. Williams, 157 Ala. 422, 48 South. 108; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Street, 164 Ala. 155, 51 South. 306, 20 Ann. Cas. 877; Moseley v. Jamison, 68 Miss. 336, 8 South. 744; 4 Sedg. on Dam. (9th Ed.) § 1368; 29 Cyc. 847, c, and numerous cases cited.

(2) If there were any dispute as to the amount of damages suffered, we would hesitate to reverse the judgment of the trial court on such a motion. But, there being no dispute, it is our duty to render here the judgment which should have been rendered below, granting a new trial, and it is so ordered.

Judgment reversed, motion to set aside verdict, and judgment granted, and the cause remanded.

Reversed, rendered," and remanded.

McClellan, Mayfield, and Thomas, JJ., concur.

Aetna Accident & Liability Co. v. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co., 73 So. 383, 198 Ala. 72, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 170 (Ala. 1916).

Pincite

73 So. 383 (Aetna Accident & Liability Co. v. Birmingham R. L. & P. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related