Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holt v. Fountain

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 31, 1929No. 1 Div. 483Published

1DissentGardner, J.

In the recent case of Whitman v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 217 Ala. 70, 114 So. 912, we quoted approvingly the following from the text of 29 Cyc. 528: “When the act and the injury are not known by common experience to be naturally and reasonably in sequence and the injury does not according to the ordinary course of events follow from the act, they are not Sufficiently connected to make the act a proximate cause.” To like effect is the language of this court in Western Ry. of Alabama v. Mutch, 97 Ala. 194, 11 So. 894, 21 L. R. A. 316, 38 Am. St. Rep. 179.

The expression approved in L. & N. R. Co. v.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Montgomery Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1898
  2. Western Railway of Alabama v. MutchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
  3. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. QuickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
  4. Culver v. HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
  5. Hart v. ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917

7 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