Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bowens v. Southern Railway Co.
Citations: 599 So. 2d 588; 1992 Ala. LEXIS 559; 1992 WL 107448Docket: 1910561
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; May 22, 1992; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Harold Bowens filed a lawsuit against Southern Railway Company under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, claiming injuries sustained while working as a service attendant. The jury ruled in favor of the railroad, and Bowens' subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial was denied. On appeal, Bowens argued that the trial court erred by allowing the railroad to introduce evidence regarding his marital status and treatment for alcoholism, despite a prior motion in limine to exclude such evidence. Bowens contended that the trial court had granted his motion unconditionally. However, the court had indicated that evidence on these matters could only be introduced after a hearing outside the jury's presence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, referencing Perry v. Brakefield, which states that unless a ruling on a motion in limine is absolute, issues are not preserved for appeal unless objections are made at the time of evidence introduction. The court concluded that the trial court's ruling was conditional, and Bowens failed to preserve his right to appeal on this basis. Bowens failed to object to the testimony he deemed prejudicial, which was necessary to preserve the issue for appeal. His reasoning for not objecting was based on the belief that such objections would only highlight the inadmissible evidence, rendering any curative instructions ineffective. Specifically, Bowens sought to exclude his deposition testimony about fathering five children with different women, as well as questions regarding his marital status and treatment for alcoholism. He also contended that the railroad's inquiries violated a court ruling prohibiting references to his alcoholism. Despite this, Bowens did not object to questioning about his medication, Sinequan, or the prescribing physician's specialization. The trial court's denial of Bowens's motion for a new trial was upheld, with the judges concurring.