## Facts

- Carol P. Harris sued Dora Stubbs Meadows for injuries from a traffic collision, alleging negligence and wantonness.
- The collision occurred on First Avenue North in Birmingham, a five-lane roadway with a center turn lane.
- Harris drove eastbound in the far right lane; Meadows, positioned to turn left, turned across eastbound traffic.
- Meadows’s vehicle struck the left front/driver-side area of Harris’s vehicle.
- Harris sustained a cervical sprain and a contusion to her left hip.
- On cross-examination, Harris testified she did not “really come down” on her brakes to stop; she slowed to see if Meadows could clear the turn and stated there was not time to stop.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that Harris failed to use reasonable and ordinary care to avoid the collision, constituting contributory negligence that barred recovery.
2. Whether the defense verdict lacked supporting evidence or was so contrary to the evidence as to be wrong and unjust, requiring reversal or a new trial.

## Decision

- The wantonness claim was dismissed at the close of the evidence.
- The negligence claim was tried to a jury; Meadows admitted negligence but asserted Harris’s contributory negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict for Meadows, and the trial court denied Harris’s motion for a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed, holding there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Harris contributorily negligent and that the verdict was not plainly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- In Alabama, a plaintiff cannot recover for negligence if the plaintiff failed to use reasonable and ordinary care and that failure proximately contributed to the injury (contributory negligence as a complete bar).
- A jury verdict is presumed correct and will not be set aside unless it is without supporting evidence or so contrary to the evidence as to be wrong and unjust.
- Appellate review does not reweigh evidence; if the verdict is not plainly erroneous and has evidentiary support, alternative conclusions are not a basis for reversal.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict because the plaintiff’s own testimony supplied evidence from which jurors could find she did not take reasonable steps to avoid a known hazard, and under Alabama’s contributory negligence rule that finding barred recovery despite the defendant’s admitted negligence.


Harris v. Meadows, 477 So. 2d 374 (Ala. 1985)