Court Opinion

ID: 9689713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:43:51.213965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:51.616558
License: Public Domain

TIPLER, Special Justice
(dissenting in part).
I concur insofar as the motion to dismiss the appeal is concerned, but cannot agree that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.
In Birmingham Electric Co. v. Lawson, 239 Ala. 236, 194 So. 659, the Court upheld a jury verdict for the plaintiff where a pole was located approximately the same distance from the traveled portion of the road as was the pole in the instant case. The only difference is that one pole was on a shoulder and the other on a median.
The majority opinion, when stripped, says that from this day forward there can be negligence on the part of one placing a pole in Alabama, if that pole is placed on a *375shoulder; hut there cannot he negligence on the part of one placing a pole in Alabama, if that pole is placed on a median— no matter where.
Medians do not necessarily have curbs, and poles can be located around blind corners within medians. Medians are constructed in many different ways and shapes. Medians will continue to be constructed in new and different ways in the future. The mind can fashion hundreds of future happenings where a pole, carelessly placed in a median, will cause injury and death to the innocent. The majority opinion grants free license to the pole placer within a median but restricts him to the scrutiny of a jury on a shoulder. I fail to see the difference. If the Lazvson case is bad law it should be overruled, not written around.
Unless the Lawson case is overruled, the plaintiffs in these cases sould be allowed to present their evidence; and, if under our scintilla rule, that evidence falls within the Lazvson case, a jury should determine negligence or the lack of it.
I respectfully dissent.