Legal Opinion

Birmingham Electric Co. v. Baker

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 9, 1929No. 6 Div. 218PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

It is, of course, well settled by the decisions of this court that negligence may be charged in general terms; but, when the pleader also attempts to set out the quo modo, the facts so set out must constitute negligence. We think, however, that count 2 in the present complaint does not attempt to set up the quo modo, or the facts or circumstances constituting negligence ; that is, the condition or circumstances under which the defendant’s servant caused the car to collide with the plaintiff’s automobile. It, in effect, merely charges that the said servant wantonly caused the car to collide…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VaughnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. MacKintosh Co. v. WellsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  3. Montgomery & Eufaula Railway Co. v. MalletteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  4. Gray v. CooperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  5. Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Strickland v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  2. Gosma v. AdamsSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
  3. Roland v. Krazy Glue, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1977
  4. Weston v. National Manufacturers & Stores Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1950
  5. McQueen v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API