# Bradford v. Birmingham Electric Co.

> Supreme Court of Alabama · June 8, 1933 · 227 Ala. 285

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3228233

## Case

- **Full name:** Bradford v. Birmingham Electric Co.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** June 8, 1933
- **Citations:** 227 Ala. 285; 149 So. 729; 1933 Ala. LEXIS 230
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Knight
- **Judges:** Anderson, Brown, Knight, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3228233

## Opinion text

On Rehearing.
KNIGHT, Justice.
If it were conceded that charge 35 should have defined what constituted “due care on the occasion complained of,” yet it appears from the oral charge of the court that the court fully and correctly defined the care required by law of the defendant in the carriage of passengers, and given charge 35 should be read in connection with the court’s oral charge. This charge in no way contravened the court’s oral charge. Due care is care proportioned to any given situation, its surrounding peculiarities and hazards. It may, and often does, require extraordinary, indeed.the highest, care. Clara E. Tower v. Charles W. Camp et al., 103 Conn. 41 , 130 A. 86 .
Application overruled.
ANDERSON, C. X, and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3228233. Public record. Not legal advice.