Court Opinion

ID: 9536339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:57:44.787568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:20.052362
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
LAWSON, Justice.
In our opinion on original deliverance we said by way of obiter dictum that Dexter Service Company would have been entitled to the general affirmative charge if such a charge had been requested, in that the record contained not even a scintilla of *366evidence tending to show that any servant, agent or employee of that company had any connection with the filling of the plaintiff’s propane gas tank.
Because of that statement counsel for ap-pellees now insist that we should modify our judgment of reversal so as not to affect the judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee Dexter Service Company. Our opinion on original deliverance is not questioned in so far as it results in a reversal of the judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee Dexter Gas Company.
We have said that when a decision in a case as to one appellee is not affected by the d'ecision as to the other, a joint judgment may be reversed as to one appellee without disturbing the judgment as to the other. Young v. Woodward Iron Co., 216 Ala. 330, 113 So. 223; Zemczonek v. McElroy, 264 Ala. 258, 86 So.2d 824.
But we have reexamined the record in this case and are constrained to observe that we were wrong in saying that there was no evidence to connect Dexter Service Company with the transaction out of which plaintiff Hall sustained his injury. We overlooked a sales slip which was introduced in evidence by the defendants below, appellees, which shows that propane gas was sold to plaintiff by Dexter Service Company on January 20, 1961, the day on which Hall alleged in his complaint that he sustained the injury. This is at least a scintilla of evidence which connects Dexter Service Company with the filling of plaintiff’s gas tank on the day the injury is alleged to have occurred. Hence, the trial court would not have committed error in refusing an affirmative instruction in favor of Dexter Service Company if such a request had been made.
Opinion extended and application for rehearing overruled.
' LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.