Title: Adams v. Lanier

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

216 So. 2d 713 (1968)
Eula Mae ADAMS
v.
Howard LANIER.
6 Div. 269.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 12, 1968.
*714 Mead, Norman & Fitzpatrick, Birmingham, for appellant.
Huey, Stone & Patton, Bessemer, for appellee.
COLEMAN, Justice.
In action for personal injury, defendant appeals from judgment of the trial court granting plaintiff's motion for new trial.
Plaintiff sued for personal injury sustained in automobile collision allegedly caused by negligence of defendant in operating an automobile at a street intersection. Defendant pleaded in short by consent the general issue, with leave, etc. The defenses submitted to the jury were the general issue, contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and release of defendant by the plaintiff. Defendant states in brief:
In view of another trial we will not undertake to set out the evidence.
The jury returned a verdict for defendant and the court rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff filed motion for new trial and the court granted the motion expressly "on Grounds One and Two." Those grounds recite:
Defendant cites and relies on the rule expressed as follows:
Defendant says that there was evidence on both sides and some evidence to support the verdict, and, therefore, the court erred in granting a new trial. For that reason, defendant argues that we ought to reverse the judgment granting the motion.
The rule quoted above is for the guidance of the trial court which must grant or deny the motion for new trial. On review of the ruling of the trial court on the motion, the appellate court is to be *715 guided by the rule of review set out in the remainder of the paragraph from which the above quotation was taken. The remainder of the paragraph recites:
See also: McDaniel v. Birmingham News Co., 276 Ala. 320, 161 So. 2d 799.
In National Security Ins. Co. v. Elliott, 276 Ala. 353, 162 So. 2d 449, the judge who tried the case did not rule on the motion for new trial. The judge who ruled on the motion did not see and hear the witnesses testify, and, for that reason, we reviewed the judgment, which granted new trial, without any presumption in favor of the ruling of the trial court.
In Greeson v. County Board of Education, 221 Ala. 483, 129 So. 42, this court reversed a judgment granting a new trial, but the ruling of the trial court did not rest on the ground that the verdict was not sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence. This court said:
Thus it appears that Greeson does not apply in the instant case.
In Dean v. Mayes, 274 Ala. 88, 145 So. 2d 439, this court affirmed and said:
Dean v. Mayes, supra, is not contrary to what we hold here.
Defendant cites McEntyre v. First National Bank of Headland, 27 Ala.App. 311, 171 So. 913, and Castleberry v. Morgan, 28 Ala.App. 70, 178 So. 823, which may be in conflict with the rule of review which we follow here. If these two cases be in conflict with the rule here applied, we decline to follow them.
Defendant cites also Riley v. Srofe, 35 Ala.App. 222, 45 So. 2d 328, in which the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court granting a new trial. As we understand the opinion, in considering the ground of the motion "that the verdict was contrary to the evidence," the Court of Appeals said:
"In its material aspects the evidence is not in dispute." (35 Ala.App. at 224, 45 So. 2d  at 330.)
The Court of Appeals quoted at some length from Cobb v. Malone, supra, and said:
The Court of Appeals appears to have concluded that, after indulging all reasonable presumptions as to the correctness of the ruling granting a new trial, the ruling was error because the undisputed evidence plainly and palpably supported the verdict. We do not think that Riley v. Srofe, supra, is contrary to what we hold here.
We have carefully considered all the evidence and are not persuaded that "the evidence plainly and palpably supports the verdict" within the meaning of that clause as used in Cobb v. Malone, supra. Neither are we persuaded that "the record plainly and palpably shows that the trial court was in error" in granting the new trial.
Affirmed.
LAWSON, SIMPSON, and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.