Norwood Transp. Co. v. Stanford

SAMFORD, J. By a failure to insist upon them tbe appellant waives all of tbe assignments' of error, except as to tbe court’s refusal to give at its request in writing charges 6 and 8, and tbe refusal of tbe court to grant a motion for a new trial on tbe ground that tbe verdict of tbe jury was so excessive and contrary to the weight of tbe evidence.' Charges 6 and 8 in tbe second alternative require too high a degree of care on tbe part of plaintiff. “Contributory negligence,” in its legal signification, is such an act of omission on tbe part of plaintiff, amounting to a want of ordinary care, as, concurring or co-operating with tbe act of defendant, is a proximate cause or occasion of the injury complained of. Thompson v. Duncan, 76 Ala. 334. Again, contributory negligence, to. be available as a defense, must at least be a concurring proximate cause of the injury. 10 Michie’s Digest, 582, § 38. Under the former rulings of this court and, *429 of the Supreme Court, according to the facts as presented by this record, we cannot reverse the trial court for its failure to grant the motion for a new trial. Thompson v. So. Ry., 17 Ala. App. 406, 85 South. 591. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.