City of Birmingham v. Crow

Supreme Court of Alabama

City of Birmingham v. Crow

101 So. 2d 264, 267 Ala. 243, 1958 Ala. LEXIS 313

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 6, 1958

Docket6 Div. 760

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 101 So. 2d 264 (City of Birmingham v. Crow) 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

City of Birmingham v. Crow, 101 So. 2d 264, 267 Ala. 243, 1958 Ala. LEXIS 313 (Ala. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

COLEMAN, Justice.

The City of Birmingham filed suit to recover damages on account of an injury to a police officer employed by the City. The complaint alleges that the police officer, while engaged in the duties of his employment, was injured as the proximate result of the negligence of the defendant in opening the door of an automobile into the path of a motorcycle on which the policeman was riding.

The complaint contains two counts. Count B'-2 alleges that as the proximate consequence of defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff City was caused for a long period of time to lose the services of said policeman, and under the rules and statutes applicable, the City was required to pay and did pay to said policeman his salary during the time he was injured. The pity seeks in this count to recover for the salary paid.

Count C-2 seeks to recover for medical, surgical, and hospital expenses paid by the City for the treatment of said policeman.

The defendant demurred on the ground, among others, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the City took a non-suit and appeals. The rulings of the trial court sustaining the demurrer to each count are assigned severally as error.

Appellant’s brief states the purpose of this appeal as follows:

“This appeal is taken to determine the Appellant’s right to sue a tortfeasor directly for damages suffered by a municipal corporation due to the negligence of a tortfeasor in injuring one of the municipal corporation’s employees.”

The question of law involved in this case is the same question this day decided in the cases of City of Birmingham v. Walker, Ala., 101 So.2d 250;¹ City of Birmingham v. Tate, Ala., 101 So.2d 263;² City of Birmingham v. Trammell, Ala., 101 So.2d 259;³ and City of Birmingham v. Jones, Ala., 101 So.2d 263.⁴ In those four cases, the City sought to assert its right to recover from the third-party tortfeasor by intervention whereas in this suit the City seeks to recover directly against the third-party tort-feasor.

In the four cases last cited, we held that the City was not subrogated to its employee’s right of action against the third-party tort-feasor. The same principles apply here. Likewise, in the instant case, the trial court held that the City could not recover from the third-party tort-feasor and the judgment appealed from is due to be and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur except STAKE-LY, J., not sitting.

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

COLEMAN, Justice.

The City of Birmingham filed suit to recover damages on account of an injury to a police officer employed by the City. The complaint alleges that the police officer, while engaged in the duties of his employment, was injured as the proximate result of the negligence of the defendant in opening the door of an automobile into the path of a motorcycle on which the policeman was riding.

The complaint contains two counts. Count B'-2 alleges that as the proximate consequence of defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff City was caused for a long period of time to lose the services of said policeman, and under the rules and statutes applicable, the City was required to pay and did pay to said policeman his salary during the time he was injured. The pity seeks in this count to recover for the salary paid.

Count C-2 seeks to recover for medical, surgical, and hospital expenses paid by the City for the treatment of said policeman.

The defendant demurred on the ground, among others, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the City took a non-suit and appeals. The rulings of the trial court sustaining the demurrer to each count are assigned severally as error.

Appellant’s brief states the purpose of this appeal as follows:

“This appeal is taken to determine the Appellant’s right to sue a tortfeasor directly for damages suffered by a municipal corporation due to the negligence of a tortfeasor in injuring one of the municipal corporation’s employees.”

The question of law involved in this case is the same question this day decided in the cases of City of Birmingham v. Walker, Ala., 101 So.2d 250;¹ City of Birmingham v. Tate, Ala., 101 So.2d 263;² City of Birmingham v. Trammell, Ala., 101 So.2d 259;³ and City of Birmingham v. Jones, Ala., 101 So.2d 263.⁴ In those four cases, the City sought to assert its right to recover from the third-party tortfeasor by intervention whereas in this suit the City seeks to recover directly against the third-party tort-feasor.

In the four cases last cited, we held that the City was not subrogated to its employee’s right of action against the third-party tort-feasor. The same principles apply here. Likewise, in the instant case, the trial court held that the City could not recover from the third-party tort-feasor and the judgment appealed from is due to be and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur except STAKE-LY, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 2d 264, 267 Ala. 243, 1958 Ala. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-birmingham-v-crow-ala-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack