Opinion
6 Div. 966.
June 30, 1927. Rehearing Denied October 27, 1927.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster, Judge.
William M. Adams, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
The complaint did not sufficiently show the locus of the accident. Racine Tire Co. v. Grady, 205 Ala. 423, 88 So. 337. Defendant's requested charges should have been given. Racine Tire Co. v. Grady, supra; Hines v. Cooper, 205 Ala. 70, 88 So. 133; Weaver v. A. G. S., 200 Ala. 434, 76 So. 364; Peters v. Southern R. Co., 135 Ala. 533, 33 So. 332; Barbour v. Shebor, 177 Ala. 304, 58 So. 276.
Reuben H. Wright, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
A violation of a statute or ordinance is negligence per se, and a person proximately injured thereby may recover. Watts v. Montgomery Tr. Co., 175 Ala. 102, 57 So. 471. The rule with regard to stopping, looking, and listening before crossing a railroad is without application to a person crossing a street. Ivy v. Marx, 205 Ala. 60, 87 So, 813, 14 A.L.R. 1173; Corona C. 1. Co. v. White, 158 Ala. 627, 48 So. 362, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 958; Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala. 97, 59 So. 597. The question of negligence of defendant and contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff was for the jury. Bachelder v. Morgan, 179 Ala. 339, 60 So. 815, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 888.
Appellee suffered injuries from a collision with an automobile driven by appellant and had a judgment for damages in this cause. Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint were not subject to the demurrers interposed by appellant. The allegation is that the accident in suit happened at or near the intersection of Twenty-Third avenue and Seventh street in the city of Tuscaloosa, Ala. This was a sufficient allegation of the locus in quo and gave appellant defendant due notice of the place in question.
Quite a number of charges were refused to appellant and the rulings thus shown are assigned for error in bulk. By such assignment appellant assumed the burden of showing that each and every of the charges should have been given. Some of them, to say the least, failed to observe the rule, prevailing in this state, that a pedestrian crossing a street is not under the same duty as one who crosses a railroad track to stop and look and listen, though, of course, he must exercise such reasonable care as the attending circumstances may require. Ivy v. Marx, 205 Ala. 60, 87 So. 813, 14 A.L.R. 1173; Barbour v. Shebor, 177 Ala. 304, 58 So. 276, and authorities cited.
The evidence was in patent conflict as to where rested the blame for the accident. The question of appellant's liability was therefore one for jury decision, and the general charge requested by appellant was properly refused.
The judgment must be affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and THOMAS, JJ., concur.