Opinion ID: 1721208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: oral charges

Text: The appellant argues that the trial court improperly refused the following two charges: DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED CHARGE NO: B The Court charges the jury that unless you believe from the evidence in this case that the Defendant Matthews Brothers Construction Co., Inc., agreed that the Plaintiff would have the exclusive right to remove debris from the right-of-way of the Fort Morgan Highway from Fort Morgan East to the one mile post at or near the Western City Limits of Gulf Shores, Alabama, then your verdict should be for the Defendant. DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED CHARGE NO: C The Court charges the jury that if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the Plaintiff did not have the exclusive right to remove debris from the right-of-way of the Fort Morgan Highway from Fort Morgan East to the one mile post at or near the Western City Limits of Gulf Shores, Alabama; and if you are further reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the Defendant Matthews Brothers Construction Co., Inc., paid to the Plaintiff $2.75 for each cubic yard of debris which the Plaintiff removed from said right-of-way, then your verdict should be for the Defendant. The refused instructions refer to the exclusive nature of the alleged contract. Matthews Brothers insisted throughout the trial, and has continued to insist on appeal, that Lopez asserted that he had an exclusive contract with the appellant to remove debris. As noted earlier, the trial court properly allowed Lopez to amend his complaint. In the amended complaint Lopez alleged he contracted only to do a job of removing debris and not that he had the entire contract to remove debris on the Fort Morgan Road; therefore, Matthews Brothers' claim that Lopez tried the case as if an exclusive agreement existed, apparently was not accepted by the trial court as the issue tried in the case. The court's duty is to state the law and tell the jury how to apply the law to the facts. McArdle v. State, 408 So.2d 491 (Ala.1981); City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala.App. 390, 185 So. 187 (1938). The trial court did not err in refusing the instructions. The instructions assumed a fact, the exclusive nature of the contract, and the presence of conflicting evidence made this assumption unwarranted. Cf. Pioneer Credit Company v. Downey, 41 Ala.App. 430, 134 So.2d 217 (1961) (court properly refused defendant's charge which assumed the existence of a contract where assumption was not warranted under conflicting evidence).