Legal Opinion

Birmingham Electric Co. v. Bailey

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided August 10, 1943No. 6 Div. 968PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMPSON, Judge.

Recovery in the case was rested upon count two of the complaint, the only count submitted to the jury.

The gravamen of this count is not the wrongful ejection of the plaintiff, but that it was made so by the use of unnecessary force. Stripped of its verbosity, the count charged the ejection of the plaintiff from the appellant’s car by the use of excessive force applied by the motorman while acting within the scope of duty and proximately resulting in the catalogued injuries to the plaintiff. The count charged an actionable wrong. Birmingham Ry. Light & Power Co. v. Yielding, 155…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Sparks v. McCrearySupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
  2. Wilkinson v. SearcySupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  3. Yarbrough v. MallorySupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  4. William E. Harden, Inc. v. HardenAlabama Court of Appeals · 1940
  5. Sturdivant v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Patterson v. SeibenhenerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1962
  2. Birmingham Electric Co. v. WaldenAlabama Court of Appeals · 1947
  3. Birmingham Electric Co. v. BaileySupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
  4. King, Inc. v. ThomasAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API