Holt v. Fountain

120 So. 149, 218 Ala. 661, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 29
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 31, 1929
Docket1 Div. 483.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 120 So. 149 (Holt v. Fountain) 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
Holt v. Fountain, 120 So. 149, 218 Ala. 661, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 29 (Ala. 1929).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The material averments of the complaint appear in the foregoing statement of the case.

The only question here presented is the action of the court in striking from the complaint the elements' of damage claimed therein, that plaintiff contracted pneumonia, and her constitution was weakened and undermined as a proximate result of the alleged negligent act of defendant in causing or permitting the highway to remain unsuitable for safe travel by reason of loose dirt and mud. and thereby causing the car in which plaintiff was riding to become mired or stuck in the mud.

The cause was originally assigned to Justice GARDNER, who prepared the opinion in the case, but upon consideration of the cause in consultation a majority of the court were not in accord therewith, but entertain the opinion that, in view of the explicit averments of the complaint showing a' direct causal connection between the negligence alleged and the consequential injury,- the motion to strike should have been overruled, and the question presented as one of fact. The majority further think that this conclusion is not in conflict with the authorities noted 'in the opinion of Justice GARDNER, which is set out below as the dissenting opinion in the cause.

It results that the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

8AYRE, THOMAS, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur. BROWN, J., not sitting.

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

Related

Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Willingham
199 So. 28 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
Hanson v. Hall
279 N.W. 227 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1938)
City of Birmingham v. Latham
162 So. 675 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Braden v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co.
137 So. 663 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 So. 149, 218 Ala. 661, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holt-v-fountain-ala-1929.