"To constitute ‘willful or intentional injury,’ there must be knowledge of danger accompanied with a design or purpose to inflict injury, whether the act be one of omission or commission.”
How later courts described this case
- "To constitute ‘willful or intentional injury,’ there must be knowledge of danger accompanied with a design or purpose to inflict injury, whether the act be one of omission or commission.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Rehearing
MAYFIELD, Justice.
In appellant’s application for rehearing, it is strongly urged that the foregoing opinion overrules National Biscuit Co. v. Wilson, 256 Ala. 241 , 54 So.2d 492 , on which opinion the appellant has specifically relied.
We are not in agreement with appellant’s contention. In the National Biscuit Company case, we held that if the skidding of an automobile was superinduced or accelerated by the driver of the automobile and a resultant injury occurs, the question of negligence is for the jury’s determination. That is not to say, however, that under different circumstances the question of wantonness might not also be for the determination of the jury.
In the present case, the motorist was conscious of the perilous condition of the roadway and her own inability to proceed safely under the prevailing conditions. Nevertheless, after warning, and with a conscious knowledge that injury would likely result if she attempted to traverse the dangerous strip of roadway, she elected to proceed. The appellant’s course of con *381 duct under these circumstances resulted in the death of the appellee’s intestate. We hold that, under these conditions, the question of wantonness was one for the jury. We do not consider this decision to be in conflict with our prior holding in National Biscuit Co. v. Wilson, supra.
Opinion extended and application for rehearing overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.