Case Title: Ex Parte Jackson

Citation: 378 So. 2d 1112

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1979-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
378 So. 2d 1112 (1979)
Ex parte Ivy Lee JACKSON, Jr. et al.
(Re: Ivy Lee JACKSON, Jr., et al. v. Douglas W. BRANTLEY).
78-538.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 7, 1979.
*1113 David B. Byrne, Jr. and John M. Bolton, III, Montgomery, for petitioners.
W. Stephen Graves, Montgomery, for respondent.
TORBERT, Chief Justice.
This petition was granted to determine whether or not the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, 378 So. 2d 1109, below is in conflict with prior decisions of this court and the Court of Civil Appeals holding, under Code 1975, § 3-5-3, and its predecessors, an owner of livestock is not liable for negligence in permitting the stock to be on the highway, but is only liable where he "knowingly or wilfully put or placed such stock upon such highway, road or street."
The Court of Civil Appeals, below, affirmed the decision of the trial court entering judgment on the jury's verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1200. The facts of the case as found by the Court of Civil Appeals are as follows:
*1114 As previously noted, this case was tried under Code 1975, § 3-5-3, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
Code 1975, § 3-5-3 (emphasis added).
Our cases have consistently held that there is no cause of action under § 3-5-3 for a plaintiff-motorist who is injured because his car collided with livestock which had strayed onto a highway through the negligence, gross negligence or recklessness of its owner. In Randle v. Payne, 39 Ala. App. 652, 107 So. 2d 907 (1958), where a bull owner was being sued under Code 1940, Tit. 3, § 79, (the predecessor of § 3-5-3) by the driver of a truck that collided with the bull on Highway 11, the Court of Appeals held: "There must be proof to the effect that the owner of the stock knowingly or wilfully placed the stock upon the public highway." Randle, supra, 39 Ala.App. at 656, 107 So. 2d  at 910. In McGough v. Wilson, 273 Ala. 179, 137 So. 2d 43 (1962), which case likewise involved the collision of a motor vehicle and a bull on a public highway, this court took note of the Randle decision and stated: "[I]ts majority opinion held, in effect, that an owner of livestock is not liable in damages to a motorist involved in a collision with his livestock for negligence in permitting the stock to be on the highway in view of the statute." McGough, supra, 273 Ala. at 182, 137 So. 2d  at 45. In McGough this court added:
McGough, supra, 273 Ala. at 183, 137 So. 2d  at 46 (emphasis supplied).
In reference to the two cases referred to above, the Court of Civil Appeals in Carter v. Alman, 46 Ala.App. 633, 247 So. 2d 676 (1971), a factually similar case, stated:
Carter v. Alman, 46 Ala.App. at 635, 247 So. 2d  at 677 (emphasis supplied).
Justice Maddox explained the legislative intention behind Code 1940, Tit. 3 § 79 (the predecessor of Code 1975, § 3-5-3) in the following language:
Chandler v. Waugh, 290 Ala. 70 at 74, 274 So. 2d 46 at 49 (1973) (emphasis supplied).
*1115 In its opinion below the Court of Civil Appeals recognizes this well-settled principle of law:
Jackson v. Brantley, [MS. April 4, 1979] 378 So. 2d 1109 (Ala.Civ.App.1979).
Whether the two unbridled horses were intentionally put on the highway was a question of fact for the jury to determine. The jury resolved this question in favor of the plaintiff and the Court of Civil Appeals held that the jury's finding in this regard was not plainly erroneous but was in fact amply supported by the evidence. We affirm that holding by the Court of Civil Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
All the Justices concur.