72 So. 354 | Ala. | 1916
The complaint sufficiently avers the duty owed by defendants, in the conduct of their cafe, not to serve to plaintiff as a customer tainted and unwholesome food; that the food so served to plaintiff was tainted and unwholesome; and that plaintiff’s partaking thereof was the proximate cause of the sickness and damages complained of and sued for.
The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled.
The case was tried on defendants’ plea of the general issue, with leave to give in evidence any special defense as if well pleáded.
In Pantaze v. West, supra, it was properly held that the court should not allow questions propounded to witnesses calling for their general knowledge of the products bought by the defendant for the use of his restaurant, etc. The same rule is applicable to the questions here sought to be propounded to defendant Greenwood, as to how he usually cooked and served chicken, in his cafe, and whether he frequently inspected his kitchen. The fact that witness frequently inspected his place was not competent evidence to explain the condition of the chicken served to plaintiff.
The cause was properly submited to the jury on the facts, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.