logical rule in Alabama

1964The logical rule . . . is that a person guilty of negligence should be held responsible for all the consequences which a prudent and experienced man, fully acquainted with all the circumstances which in fact existed, whether they could have been ascertained by reasonable diligence or not, would, at the time of the negligent act, have thought reasonably possible to follow, if they had occurred to his mind.” Armstrong, Adr’x v. Montgomery Street Railway Co., 123 Ala. 233, 249, 250 , 26 So. 349 , 354; Goodwyn v. Gibson, 235 Ala. 19 , 177 So. 140 .

1926“The logical rule in this connection, the rule of common sense and human experience as well, * * * is that a person guilty of negligence should be held responsible for all the consequences which a prudent and experienced man, fully acquainted with all the circumstances which in fact existed, whether they could have been ascertained by reasonable diligence or not, would, at the time of the negligent act, have thought reasonably possible to follow, if they had occurred to his mind.” Armstrong v. Street Railway, 123 Ala. 233 , 26 So. 349 .

2005We have said that "`"The grant or denial of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be disturbed upon a showing of manifest abuse."'" Gamble v. State , 791 So.2d 409 , 431 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), quoting Whitt v. State , 733 So.2d 463 , 481 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), quoting in turn Huffman v. State , 706 So.2d 808 , 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997).

2005We have said that “ ‘ “The grant or denial of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be disturbed upon a showing of manifest abuse.” ’ ” Gamble v. State, 791 So.2d 409, 431 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), quoting Whitt v. State, 733 So.2d 463, 481 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), quoting in turn Huffman v. State, 706 So.2d 808, 809 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).

2005We have said that "`"The grant or denial of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be disturbed upon a showing of manifest abuse."'" Gamble v. State , 791 So.2d 409 , 431 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), quoting Whitt v. State , 733 So.2d 463 , 481 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), quoting in turn Huffman v. State , 706 So.2d 808 , 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997).

2005We have said that “ ‘ “The grant or denial of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be disturbed upon a showing of manifest abuse.” ’ ” Gamble v. State, 791 So.2d 409, 431 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), quoting Whitt v. State, 733 So.2d 463, 481 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), quoting in turn Huffman v. State, 706 So.2d 808, 809 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).

2005We have said that "`"The grant or denial of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be disturbed upon a showing of manifest abuse."'" Gamble v. State , 791 So.2d 409 , 431 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), quoting Whitt v. State , 733 So.2d 463 , 481 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), quoting in turn Huffman v. State , 706 So.2d 808 , 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997).

2005We have said that “ ‘ “The grant or denial of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be disturbed upon a showing of manifest abuse.” ’ ” Gamble v. State, 791 So.2d 409, 431 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), quoting Whitt v. State, 733 So.2d 463, 481 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), quoting in turn Huffman v. State, 706 So.2d 808, 809 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).

1995In Deputy Sheriffs Law Enforcement Ass’n of Mobile County v. Mobile County, 590 So.2d 239, 242 (Ala.1991), this Court said, “Stating it differently, this Court has held that if upon comparing the enacted law and the advertised bill one finds material or substantial differences, then the entire law must be declared invalid.” The logical inquiry, then, is what is a material or substantial difference?