Simmons v. Central Concrete Products Co., 619 So. 2d 1335

Simmons v. Central Concrete Products Co.

619 So. 2d 1335 | Ala. | 1993

Lead Opinion

ADAMS, Justice.

The only issue of merit in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury with regard to comparative negligence. We affirm on the authority of Williams v. Delta International Machinery Corp., 619 So.2d 1330 (Ala.1993).

AFFIRMED.

MADDOX, ALMON, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur. HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES and INGRAM, JJ., dissent.

Dissenting Opinion

INGRAM, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I would adopt the doctrine of comparative negligence, because it would provide the people of Alabama with an up-to-date judicial tool that would promote greater fairness in negligence actions.

We live in the remarkable age of technology in so many areas of our lives. Yet, by retaining the doctrine of contributory negligence, we continue to adhere to the most outmoded concept in our justice system.

Dissenting Opinion

HORNSBY, Chief Justice

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. See my special opinion in Williams v. Delta International Machinery Corp., 619 So.2d 1330 (Ala.1993).

SHORES, J., concurs.