Fawley v. Bobo
Fawley v. Bobo
Opinion of the Court
Two questions are presented by appellant for decision on this appeal :
First, it is contended that defendants do not plead the contributory negligence of the driver of plaintiff’s tractor and trailer. True, the acts of negligence averred against the said driver are not characterized as “contributory negligence,” but defendants plead “as a complete bar to plaintiff’s alleged cause of action” facts and circumstances which amount to contributory negligence. Therefore, the contention so made is not well founded.
Second, plaintiff contends that evidence offered on the trial below, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, is sufficient to take the case to the jury. • •
' As to -this contention, if it be conceded that there is evidence tending to show that the defendant Earl Bobo was negligent in the operation of
It is sufficient to defeat recovery if plaintiff’s negligence is one of the proximate causes of the injury. It need not be the sole proximate cause. Wilson v. Motor Lines, supra, and cases there cited.
After full consideration of assignments brought forward and presented, error is not made to appear. Hence, the judgment below is
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- D. W. FAWLEY v. EARL BOBO and H. W. BRASINGTON
- Status
- Published