Title: Bearden v. LeMaster
Citation: 226 So. 2d 647
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 11, 1969

226 So. 2d 647 (1969)
Lonzo L. BEARDEN
v.
Carolyn LeMASTER, pro ami.
8 Div. 304.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 11, 1969.
*648 Clark E. Johnson, Albertville, for appellant.
T. J. Carnes, Albertville, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by defendant from the Circuit Court of Marshall County, Albertville Division, following a jury trial with verdict in favor of plaintiff. The suit was for personal injuries received in an automobile collision between a pick-up truck owned and driven by defendant and a passenger car driven by plaintiff. The accident occurred within the city limits of Albertville on Highway 431 at an intersection with Martlin Road. The car driven by plaintiff was owned by her grandmother. Plaintiff's father was in the car and also plaintiff's little brother, all riding in the front seat.
The complaint contained a count charging simple negligence and a count charging wanton conduct. The wanton count was later withdrawn. Defendant pleaded the general issue and contributory negligence. Defendant also filed a plea of recoupment claiming personal injuries and property damage. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for Five Thousand and No/100 ($5,000.00) Dollars. A motion for new trial was overruled and this appeal followed.
The accident occurred around 9:00 a. m. and there is nothing to indicate other than normal weather conditions. United States Highway 431 is a four-lane divided road. Stop signs are erected on each side of the roadway at this intersection. There is a dividing strip between the two traffic lanes.
Defendant testified that as he approached the intersection, he stopped the truck and looked; he then moved to the middle of the road with his bumper "just *649 over the line," where he stopped again. It was at this time and place that plaintiff's car traveling on the outside right lane, as plaintiff contends, collided with defendant's truck, and thereafter ran some distance striking a brick wall. Defendant and his wife, a passenger in the truck, both received personal injuries. Plaintiff received extended, severe, and permanent injuries. The movement of both vehicles immediately preceding the collision was highly disputed.
These assignments deal with the failure of the court to grant the motion for a new trial. The argument, in brief, deals only with the conduct of plaintiff, with emphasis on her speed and failure to see and avoid the defendant's vehicle. Appellant relies almost entirely on plaintiff's testimony to support his contention of contributory negligence. We assume the same contention and argument was made to the jury. The trial court also heard and considered the contention of defendant's counsel. The ruling in denying the motion for new trial gives added support to plaintiff's contention that the jury verdict should not here be disturbed. We conclude that the ruling on the motion for new trial was without error. Southern Railway Co. v. Reeder, 281 Ala. 458, 204 So. 2d 808.
The following unnumbered charge was given for plaintiff:
Appellant contends the charge is unnumbered, argumentative, abstract, and does not state a principle of law.
We have for many years recognized a consideration of the decreasing value of the dollar in deciding if jury verdicts are excessive. Louisville and Nashville R. Co. v. Tucker, 262 Ala. 570, 80 So. 2d 288; Southern Ry. Co. v. Stallings, 268 Ala. 463, 107 So. 2d 873; Jack Cole Co. v. Hays, 281 Ala. 118, 199 So. 2d 659; Magic City Bottling Co. v. Tolbert, 34 Ala.App. 516, 41 So. 2d 619. See also: 12 A.L.R.2d 642 with annotations.
In Rebholz v. Wettengel, 211 Wis. 285, 292, 248 N.W. 109, the court observed:
Later the question was again considered by the Oregon Supreme Court in Willard v. Hutson, 234 Or. 148, 378 P.2d 966, 1 A. L.R.3d 1092, where an instruction was given to the jury as follows:
We agree with this statement and holding.
Here plaintiff sustained substantial permanent injuries including a fracture of the small bone of the ankle, compound fracture of the right wrist, and crushed right kneecap requiring removal. Appellant does not raise on this appeal or in the motion for new trial that the award of Five Thousand and No/100 ($5,000.00) Dollars was excessive. We hold that while the court could have refused the charge, without error, the giving of the charge resulted in no injury to defendant and was without error.
Appellant contends that this charge is abstract and ignores the principle of subsequent negligence. If abstract it can be given without error. Hatcher v. Camp, 279 Ala. 475, 187 So. 2d 232. We cannot agree that this charge ignores the issue of subsequent negligence; an explanatory charge should have been requested by defendant. The pleading was at length, to include the counterclaim. The court in its full and complete oral charge made no mention of subsequent negligence. No exceptions were taken to the oral charge. We hold there was no error in giving this instruction. Johnson v. Coker, 281 Ala. 14, 198 So. 2d 299; Deamer v. Evans, 278 Ala. 35, 175 So. 2d 466.
The court gave at the request of plaintiff the following unnumbered charges:
These charges related to the measure of damages and may be considered together.
The argument is made that the charges are abstract and unrelated to the evidence. We cannot agree with this contention, but again observe that any prejudicial error could only relate to the amount of damages awarded. We repeat that there is no contention here made that the damages awarded to plaintiff for most serious, permanent injuries were excessive.
We hold there was no error in the giving of either charge. Supreme Court Rule 45.
This charge is somewhat similar to the charge discussed under assignment of error 4. Again the criticism is made that the charge is abstract, and not related to the evidence. Counsel admits the charge is "clearly a better statement than the instruction discussed under Assignment of Error 4." We hold that while the charge could have been refused without error, it was not error here to give the charge.
This charge deals primarily with injuries for which compensation may be awarded for the wrongful infliction of injury. It deals rather vaguely with elements of injury which can be made the predicate for compensation in damages. It may have been taken from an opinion in another case, as suggested by appellant.
Objection is here made, as in most of the other charges previously considered that the charge is unnumbered. No authority is cited to sustain this position. We know of no such requirement. Numbering of written charges is not provided in Title 7, § 273, 1958 Recompiled Code. There is no error here for this reason.
In our judgment, the trial court could have refused this charge without error. Since it deals primarily with damages and, as previously indicated, the amount of damages awarded plaintiff is not claimed to be excessive, we hold that there was no error to the injury of the defendant in the giving of this instruction. Supreme Court Rule 45.
Here there is a renewal of the alleged error in overruling the motion for new trial. Appellant urges that this motion should have been granted on grounds 7 to 16 inclusive of said motion, this being a renewal of the given charges already here considered and denied. Also presented but not argued are defendant's refused charges 1, 2, 3, and 8. Three of these charges relate to the wanton count which was withdrawn. Charge 8 is bad because it omits any reference to proximate cause. Again, *652 we hold the motion for new trial was overruled without error.
The case is due to be affirmed.
This opinion was prepared by J. EDGAR BOWRON, Supernumerary Circuit Judge, and was adopted by the Court as its opinion.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON, COLEMAN, and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.