Court Opinion

ID: 9824596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:56:47.752419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:52.420037
License: Public Domain

BROWN, P. J.
[1] The averments of the third count of the complaint, that the defendant’s servants negligently ran the car against the buggy in which the plaintiff was sitting, while it was on West Clinton street in the city of Huntsville, is sufficient to show that the plaintiff was not a trespasser on the defendant’s tracks, and hence that it owed her the duty not to negligently injure her. B. R., L. & P. Co. v. Fox, 174 Ala. 657, 56 South. 1013; B., E. & B. R. Co. v. Feast, 192 Ala. 410, 68 South. 294; Montgomery Street Ry. Co. v. Shanks, 139 Ala. 489, 37 South. 166; B. R., L. & P. Co. v. Clark, 148 Ala. 673, 41 South. 829; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Crenshaw, 136 Ala. 573, 34 South. 913.
[2] While charge 1, refused to the defendant, asserts a general principle of law applicable to the case, its refusal in this case was clearly not injurious to the defendant, in view of charges 2 and 5 given at defendant’s instance, which assert the same proposition of law as applied to the evidence' in the case, hyphothesizing the only possible theories upon which the doctrine of unavoidable accident could be applied to the case in hand.
After a careful review of the evidence in the case, we are not able to say that the action of the court in denying the motion for a new trial was erroneous. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738; Veid v. Roberts, 200 Ala. 576, 76 South. 934.
We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.