Opinion ID: 1103678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exceptions to Oral Charge.

Text: The Power Company assigns as error three separate portions of the oral charge to which the company asserts it reserved three separate exceptions. The record discloses that the company undertook to reserve exceptions as follows: MR. VOGTLE: I want an exception to that portion of the Charge, that portion where you stated in substance that the jury could find the Power Company liable if workers or other persons were in proximity of said line. I would also like THE COURT: I don't remember making that statement, but you may have it in there. I just can't remember everything. MR. VOGTLE: I would also THE COURT: You mean the statement standing alone by itself? MR. VOGTLE: It was in substance that where they, you used the words, `in proximity to said line,' is the expression, as I have it. THE COURT: Rightfully in proximity? MR. VOGTLE: Yes, sir. I would also like to except to the Court's oral charge in which he stated in substance that the Alabama Power Company or a utility must insulate its wires, among other things, where people are carrying things. That is all I have. THE COURT: All right. The proper way to reserve an exception to a part of the court's oral charge is for the exceptor to select and recite what the court said, or state the substance of what the court said, and thus specifically bring to the attention of the trial court and this court the matter and ruling of which complaint is made. Pollard v. Rogers, 234 Ala. 92, 173 So. 881. An exception to that part of the charge defining wantonness is too indefinite to reserve an exception to the oral charge. Conway v. Robinson, 216 Ala. 495, 113 So. 531. We are of opinion that the attempt, as aforesaid, to reserve exceptions to the oral charge in the case at bar was likewise insufficient to present for review the alleged errors in the oral charge. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cockrum, 179 Ala. 372, 60 So. 304; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Friedman, 187 Ala. 562, 65 So. 939; Bean v. Stephens, 208 Ala. 197, 94 So. 173.