# Creel v. Brown

> Supreme Court of Alabama · April 24, 1987 · 508 So. 2d 684

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938377

## Case

- **Full name:** Connie H. Creel and George D. Creel v. Roger Steve Brown.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** April 24, 1987
- **Citations:** 508 So. 2d 684
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Houston
- **Judges:** Almon, Houston
- **Cited by:** 18 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/9938377

## Opinion text

Does a witness's isolated answer to a particular question, removed from the totality of the testimony of that witness which explains or qualifies that answer, satisfy our scintilla-of-evidence sufficiency standard? To me, it does not. I believe that we must review all of the testimony of a particular witness to determine whether there is any evidence to take a plaintiff's case or a defendant's affirmative defense to the jury. In this case, if I read only certain of Brown's answers to certain questions addressed to him, I could arrive at a metaphysical judgment that I saw a gleam, glimmer, spark, or trace of evidence from which I could logically infer that Mrs. Creel was contributorily negligent. If I analyze all of Brown's testimony and all other evidence introduced, that gleam, glimmer, spark, or trace disappears, and I am of the opinion that it would be logically unreasonable for a jury to conclude that Mrs. Creel was contributorily negligent. Therefore, I agree that the affirmative defense of contributory *Page 689
negligence should not have been submitted to the jury.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938377. Public record. Not legal advice.