In this personal injury and property damage action arising out of an automobile-truck collision, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants/appellees and the trial court rendered judgment thereon. Plaintiffs/appellants appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion for new trial. We affirm.
On May 13, 1979, Rosalie McKinney
The disputed issues at trial were whether Hyde was operating his vehicle in a negligent manner or not and the extent of Mrs. McKinney's and Mark's injuries. On the negligence issue we note initially that proof of an accident and injury is not sufficient to prove negligence. Mobile Press Register, Inc. v. Padgett, 285 Ala. 463, 233 So.2d 472 (1970); Mobile City Lines, Inc. v.
The Court gave defendants' requested jury instructions pertaining to the sudden emergency doctrine which imposes a standard of care appropriate to the circumstances (see the cases cited infra). The McKinneys contend this was error because the "emergency" was a result of Hyde's inattention or speeding. The conflicting evidence on Hyde's conduct created a jury question. The instructions specified that the doctrine applies only where a person is faced with a sudden emergency "without fault of his own" and that the jury is to decide whether the doctrine applies. Therefore, the giving of the instruction was not error. Williams v. Worthington, 386 So.2d 408 (Ala.1980); Miller v. Dacovich, 355 So.2d 1109 (Ala.1978); Gleichert v. Stephens, 291 Ala. 347, 280 So.2d 776 (1973); Rollins v. Handley, 403 So.2d 914 (Ala.Civ. App.1980).
Furthermore, the testimony as to Mrs. McKinney's injuries raised a question for the jury. Two of her doctors testified that her cervical strain from the accident was mild, showed no objective sign of injury, and should not be permanent; that the pain she experienced could also have been caused or contributed to by a pre-existing degenerative joint disease, a prior injury in a similar accident, and job-related stress. Although the damage to her car was uncontroverted, her valuation of the damage was cast into doubt by cross-examination; we do not see fit to reverse and remand the case on this aspect in light of the controversy over Hyde's alleged fault.
On the whole, therefore, this is a case where the presumption in favor of a jury verdict, strengthened by the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial, compels us to affirm. Goodson v. Elba Baking Co., 408 So.2d 498 (Ala.1981); Hill v. Cherry, 379 So.2d 590 (Ala.1980).
The judgment below is affirmed.
TORBERT, C. J., and ALMON, EMBRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.