Jinright v. Archer

Alabama Court of Appeals

Jinright v. Archer

78 So. 713, 16 Ala. App. 450, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 132

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 1918

Docket4 Div. 535.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 So. 713 (Jinright v. Archer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jinright v. Archer, 78 So. 713, 16 Ala. App. 450, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 132 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1,2] The first two counts of the complaint sufficiently state a cause of action for simple negligence, and were not subject to the demurrers interposed.

[3] The third count of the complaint alleged that plaintiff’s injury was caused by the “recklessness, wantonness, and willfulness” of the defendant. This count was not subject to the demurrer interposed. Highland Ave. & Belt R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 125 Ala. 483, 28 South. 28, in which case McClellan, C. J., says:

“The word ‘recklessly,’ when used conjunctively with ‘wantonly,’ always means something more than ‘negligently.’ The two words thus conjoined can never import less than such conscious disregard of and indifference to the probable consequences of the act to which they refer as is the legal equivalent of willful misconduct and intentional wrong.”

In the case of Merrill v. Sheffield Co. et al., 169 Ala. at page 252, 53 South. 219, of the opinion, the difference between the conjunctive and the disjunctive conjunction is noted by the justice writing the opinion, and in passing upon the seventh count in that case, it will be noted that the charge is “negligently,” “carelessly,” and “wantonly,” whereas in the instant case, the charge is “recklessness, wantonness, and willfulness.” We are not unmindful of the case of Cartlidge v. Sloan, 124 Ala. 596, 26 South. 918, and what appears to be the holding in that case, nor do we undertake to reconcile the two cases. Suffice it to say, according to our view, the allegation of recklessness, when coupled with an allegation of wantonness and willfulness, imports more than simple negligence.

The foregoing precludes necessity for a further discussion of the various rulings of the trial court. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1,2] The first two counts of the complaint sufficiently state a cause of action for simple negligence, and were not subject to the demurrers interposed.

[3] The third count of the complaint alleged that plaintiff’s injury was caused by the “recklessness, wantonness, and willfulness” of the defendant. This count was not subject to the demurrer interposed. Highland Ave. & Belt R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 125 Ala. 483, 28 South. 28, in which case McClellan, C. J., says:

“The word ‘recklessly,’ when used conjunctively with ‘wantonly,’ always means something more than ‘negligently.’ The two words thus conjoined can never import less than such conscious disregard of and indifference to the probable consequences of the act to which they refer as is the legal equivalent of willful misconduct and intentional wrong.”

In the case of Merrill v. Sheffield Co. et al., 169 Ala. at page 252, 53 South. 219, of the opinion, the difference between the conjunctive and the disjunctive conjunction is noted by the justice writing the opinion, and in passing upon the seventh count in that case, it will be noted that the charge is “negligently,” “carelessly,” and “wantonly,” whereas in the instant case, the charge is “recklessness, wantonness, and willfulness.” We are not unmindful of the case of Cartlidge v. Sloan, 124 Ala. 596, 26 South. 918, and what appears to be the holding in that case, nor do we undertake to reconcile the two cases. Suffice it to say, according to our view, the allegation of recklessness, when coupled with an allegation of wantonness and willfulness, imports more than simple negligence.

The foregoing precludes necessity for a further discussion of the various rulings of the trial court. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 713, 16 Ala. App. 450, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jinright-v-archer-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack