Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

WILKINSON v. FLOWERS.

BROWN, P.J.

The assignments of error present for consideration only questions of fact — whether or not the defendant was guilty of negligence proximately resulting in the injury complained of, and, if so, whether plaintiff's agent or servant was guilty of such contributory negligence as would bar a recovery. On these issues the testimony was taken ore tenus, and that offered by the plaintiff is in sharp conflict with the testimony offered by the defendant. The trial court was in a better position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than we are, and when his findings are accorded the weight of a verdict of a jury, we are unable to say that his conclusions are erroneous. Cofield v. McGraw Garner, ante, p. 369, 77 So. 981; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52; Hatfield v. Riley, 199 Ala. 388, 74 So. 380; Veid v. Roberts, 200 Ala. 576, 76 So. 934.

In our opinion a discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose, and by the provisions of section 5999 of the Code, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 595, we are relieved of this burden.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WILKINSON v. FLOWERS
(Feb 5, 1918)