460 So. 2d 1359 | Ala. Civ. App. | 1984
This is a personal injury case.
Mr. Davis' complaint sought damages from defendants based upon negligence and wantonness. A light fixture fell from the ceiling of the plaintiff's employer's plant, and the plaintiff alleged that it struck and injured him. A jury trial ensued. Under the evidence, the defendants were not joint tort-feasors, but their liability, if any, was separate and several in nature. The case was submitted to the jury upon both negligence and wantonness as to the defendant Alabaster Electric Company and one individual defendant, but only upon wantonness as to the other two defendants. The only verdict of the jury was: "We the jury find for the plaintiff and against Alabaster Elec. Co. for negligence and assess the Damages at $2,000.00."
The plaintiff appealed and raises as the sole issue for our decision the sufficiency of the jury's verdict in view of the fact that there were three other defendants who were not mentioned in the verdict of the jury.
Intendments are indulged in favor of an ambiguous verdict where its language can be reasonably interpreted by reference to the pleadings and jury instructions. "The real question is whether the verdict was hopelessly defective thereby affording no proper basis for a judgment." (Citations omitted.) JimWalter Homes, Inc. v. Holman,
An even stronger precedent for upholding the verdict is found in Handley v. Lawley,
The verdict was sufficient. We affirm.
The foregoing opinion was prepared by retired Circuit Judge EDWARD N. SCRUGGS, serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of §
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur. *1361