Eady v. Heaton

140 So. 408, 224 Ala. 327, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 556
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMarch 10, 1932
Docket7 Div. 83.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 So. 408 (Eady v. Heaton) 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
Eady v. Heaton, 140 So. 408, 224 Ala. 327, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 556 (Ala. 1932).

Opinion

BOULDIN, J.

Count 1 of the complaint alleges:

“* * * On or about the 26th day of August 1930 plaintiff was in the act of walking across Broad Street in Gadsden, Alabama, at or in proximity to the junction of said Broad Street and Third Street, both of which are public thoroughfares in said city, and at said time and place the defendant was operating an automobile, and
“Plaintiff avers that the defendant then and there negligently ran said automobile against, upon or over, the plaintiff (here follows recital of injuries); all of which said injuries and damages plaintiff avers were proximately caused by the negligence of the said Charles Eady in that at said time and place he so negligently handled, managed, operated or controlled the automobile which he was driving as that it ran against, upon or over plaintiff as aforesaid,” etc.

This count sufficiently avers time and place, discloses the duty owed by an automobile driver to a pedestrian while in lawful use of a public street, and a breach of such duty in the operation of the automobile.

It is not demurrable for generality in averment of negligence. It does not set forth the quo nnodo of negligent operation; hence is not demurrable for insufficient averment in such cases. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. *328 v. Church, 155 Ala. 329, 46 So. 457, 130 Am. St. Rep. 29; Dwight Manufacturing Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala. 590, 73 So. 933; Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 274, 60 So. 262.

The verdict, as disclosed on its face, was returned on count 1. Rulings on other counts adverse to defendant were immaterial. No other questions are raised.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. .7., and GARDNER and POSTER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

McLaney v. Turner
104 So. 2d 315 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
City of Birmingham v. Cox
159 So. 818 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 So. 408, 224 Ala. 327, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eady-v-heaton-ala-1932.