Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl

Supreme Court of Alabama

Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl

63 So. 196, 183 Ala. 429, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 564

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 1, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 63 So. 196 (Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl) 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

Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl, 63 So. 196, 183 Ala. 429, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 564 (Ala. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

— The amended count 2, the only one upon which the case was tried, was not subject to the defendant’s demurrers.' It more than met the requirements of the rule as laid down in the case of A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Crocker, 131 Ala. 585, 31 South. 561.

Nor did the trial court err in refusing the motion to strike because the amendment was made in black in stead of purple ink. That the amendment should be made in purple ink was a mere direction by the court, which it could and did waive by receiving it in black ink, and in declining to sustain the motion to strike.

This was a suit by an infant three years of age, and the contributory negligence of her parent was not available as a defense. This rule has been so often followed in this state that citation of authority is unnecessary. The trial court properly sustained the plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s plea 2.

[435]*435On the other hand, if plea 2 is not to be'deemed one of contributory negligence, it is a mere attempt to escape a legal liability for the sole reason that the defendant’s negligent manager is the parent of the plaintiff, and which is, in the end, but an effort to make the child responsible for the negligence of the parent, notwithstanding he was the defendant’s manager of its plant and works. The cases relied upon by appellant’s counsel, to the effect that a child cannot recover from a parent for personal injuries, whether sound or not, are not applicable, in point or by analogy, to the present plea.

The insistence, in most instances, as to the ruling upon the evidence, amounts to no more than a repetition of the assignments of error, but we do not think that the trial court committed reversible error in ruling upon the evidence.

The injury caused the loss of one of the plaintiff’s hands and a part of the wrist, and we are not prepared to say that the verdict was excessive.

The judgment of the law and equity court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McClellan, Somerville, and de G-raffenried, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, J.

— The amended count 2, the only one upon which the case was tried, was not subject to the defendant’s demurrers.' It more than met the requirements of the rule as laid down in the case of A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Crocker, 131 Ala. 585, 31 South. 561.

Nor did the trial court err in refusing the motion to strike because the amendment was made in black in stead of purple ink. That the amendment should be made in purple ink was a mere direction by the court, which it could and did waive by receiving it in black ink, and in declining to sustain the motion to strike.

This was a suit by an infant three years of age, and the contributory negligence of her parent was not available as a defense. This rule has been so often followed in this state that citation of authority is unnecessary. The trial court properly sustained the plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s plea 2.

[435]*435On the other hand, if plea 2 is not to be'deemed one of contributory negligence, it is a mere attempt to escape a legal liability for the sole reason that the defendant’s negligent manager is the parent of the plaintiff, and which is, in the end, but an effort to make the child responsible for the negligence of the parent, notwithstanding he was the defendant’s manager of its plant and works. The cases relied upon by appellant’s counsel, to the effect that a child cannot recover from a parent for personal injuries, whether sound or not, are not applicable, in point or by analogy, to the present plea.

The insistence, in most instances, as to the ruling upon the evidence, amounts to no more than a repetition of the assignments of error, but we do not think that the trial court committed reversible error in ruling upon the evidence.

The injury caused the loss of one of the plaintiff’s hands and a part of the wrist, and we are not prepared to say that the verdict was excessive.

The judgment of the law and equity court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McClellan, Somerville, and de G-raffenried, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 196, 183 Ala. 429, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clover-creamery-co-v-diehl-ala-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack