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
- 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.
- 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.