Brooks v. Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama

Brooks v. Williams

475 So. 2d 1182, 1985 Ala. LEXIS 4065

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedAugust 30, 1985

Docket83-222

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 475 So. 2d 1182 (Brooks v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Williams, 475 So. 2d 1182, 1985 Ala. LEXIS 4065 (Ala. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ALMON, Justice.

The only issue presented is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants on a count of Brooks’s complaint charging wantonness.

Appellant Brooks brought an action against Williams and W.R. White Construction Company, Inc., for personal injury and property damage he sustained as a result of a collision between his truck and a truck operated by Williams and owned by White Construction.

Vincent intervened as a plaintiff, seeking compensation for damages to his cattle trailer, which was being towed by Brooks at the time of the accident.

Brooks’s complaint contained a negligence count and a wantonness count. The defendants’ answer raised contributory negligence as a defense to Brooks’s negligence count. The trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the wantonness count. The negligence counts of Brooks and Vincent were submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for the defendants.

It is unnecessary to set out the facts except to say that the facts relied on to prove negligence are the same as those relied on to prove wantonness. The jury verdict as to Vincent established no negligence on the part of the defendants. There being no issue of contributory negligence on Vincent’s claim, the jury verdict absolved the defendants of wantonness, because, as previously noted, the facts relied on to prove each count were the same. Therefore, any error in failing to submit the wantonness counts to the jury was harmless.

This case is controlled by Kendrick v. Birmingham Southern R. Co., 254 Ala. 318, 48 So.2d 320 (1950), and not by McNeil v. Munson S.S. Line, 184 Ala. 420, 63 So. 992 (1913); Sington v. Birmingham R., L. & P. Co., 200 Ala. 282, 76 So. 48 (1917); Coleman v. Hamilton Storage Co., 235 Ala. 553, 180 So. 553 (1938); and Lambert v. Birmingham Electric Co., 244 Ala. 333, 13 So.2d 579 (1943).

The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, EM-BRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

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

ALMON, Justice.

The only issue presented is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants on a count of Brooks’s complaint charging wantonness.

Appellant Brooks brought an action against Williams and W.R. White Construction Company, Inc., for personal injury and property damage he sustained as a result of a collision between his truck and a truck operated by Williams and owned by White Construction.

Vincent intervened as a plaintiff, seeking compensation for damages to his cattle trailer, which was being towed by Brooks at the time of the accident.

Brooks’s complaint contained a negligence count and a wantonness count. The defendants’ answer raised contributory negligence as a defense to Brooks’s negligence count. The trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the wantonness count. The negligence counts of Brooks and Vincent were submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for the defendants.

It is unnecessary to set out the facts except to say that the facts relied on to prove negligence are the same as those relied on to prove wantonness. The jury verdict as to Vincent established no negligence on the part of the defendants. There being no issue of contributory negligence on Vincent’s claim, the jury verdict absolved the defendants of wantonness, because, as previously noted, the facts relied on to prove each count were the same. Therefore, any error in failing to submit the wantonness counts to the jury was harmless.

This case is controlled by Kendrick v. Birmingham Southern R. Co., 254 Ala. 318, 48 So.2d 320 (1950), and not by McNeil v. Munson S.S. Line, 184 Ala. 420, 63 So. 992 (1913); Sington v. Birmingham R., L. & P. Co., 200 Ala. 282, 76 So. 48 (1917); Coleman v. Hamilton Storage Co., 235 Ala. 553, 180 So. 553 (1938); and Lambert v. Birmingham Electric Co., 244 Ala. 333, 13 So.2d 579 (1943).

The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, EM-BRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 So. 2d 1182, 1985 Ala. LEXIS 4065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-williams-ala-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack