ALA. GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. Sumter Plywood Corp.

359 So. 2d 1140
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 21, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 359 So. 2d 1140 (ALA. GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. Sumter Plywood Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ALA. GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. Sumter Plywood Corp., 359 So. 2d 1140 (Ala. 1978).

Opinion

On this appeal we decide whether a contract which relieves a party from the consequences of its own negligence is enforceable. Judgment in favor of Sumter Plywood Corporation, plaintiff below, and against Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, defendant below, in the amount of $21,798.31 was entered upon stipulated facts. We affirm.

The facts, as stipulated and submitted to the trial court by the parties, are:

"1. That attached hereto and marked `Exhibit A' is a true and correct copy of an agreement entered into by and between the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, as party of the first part, and the Industrial Development Board of the Town of Livingston, as party of the second part, on, to-wit, 25 January 1972.

"2. That attached hereto and marked `Exhibit B' is a true and correct copy of an agreement entered into by the defendant, Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company as `Railroad'; Industrial Development Board of the Town of Livingston as `Industry'; and plaintiff, Sumter Plywood Corporation as `Shipper', dated on, to-wit, 26 January 1972. That Exhibit A constitutes the agreement referred to in the first paragraph of Exhibit B, being the agreement and instrument thereafter referred to as `Agreement' in Exhibit B.

"3. That defendant, Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, required the Industrial Development Board of the Town of Livingston to execute Exhibit A and the Industrial Development Board of the Town of Livingston and Sumter Plywood Corporation to execute Exhibit B as a condition to the agreement of the Alabama Great Southern Railroad to afford the terminal services and facilities referred to in said agreement and to furnish such terminal services and facilities elsewhere than at the regular station of Railroad. The spur on which this incident occurred was an extension of a lead line in the South Industrial Park of Livingston, Alabama. The lead line was owned by the Defendant and the spur by Sumter Plywood Corporation.

"4. That the suit in this case claims damages based on the alleged negligent or wanton damage by Railroad of the overhead chip-bin loader referred to in paragraph 2 of Exhibit A and that the *Page 1141 property for which Plaintiff seeks to recover damages is one of the `facilities' referred to in said agreement and the accident involved arose out of the use of such facility.

"5. That the agreements attached hereto and marked `Exhibit A' and `Exhibit B' were in full force and effect on, to-wit, 1 September 1975, the date of the accident made the basis of the suit filed herein and such accident is subject to the terms of said agreement insofar as said agreement may be deemed to be valid and enforceable.

"6. That there is no evidence of any wanton act or misconduct on the part of the defendant or its agents, servants, or employees.

"7. That the accident in question occurred on 1 September, 1975, which was a Labor Day holiday and plaintiff's mill was not in operation and none of plaintiff's employees were present at the time of said accident. The accident occurred when defendant's employees connected a train to a partially filled railroad car located under the aforesaid overhead chip-bin loader and moved said car without observing that said car was attached to a cable and winch used to move said car into position under the chip-bin loader. The moving of such car caused the cable to remove the legs supporting the chip-bin loader which overturned causing the damage claimed."

An additional stipulation reads:

"1. The plaintiff and defendant hereby agree, admit and stipulate to all of the matters and facts contained in the stipulation heretofore made in this case for the purpose of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, said stipulation being dated 22 October 1976, said stipulation to have the same force and effect as the other matters stipulated hereinafter and fully and to the same extent as if the same were set forth herein at length.

"2. That the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the accident made the subject of this suit was the sum of Twenty One Thousand, Seven Hundred Ninety Eight and 31/100 ($21,798.31) Dollars.

"3. That the defendant, Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, was guilty of simple negligence which proximately caused the accident made the subject of this suit and the damages stipulated to above.

"4. The plaintiff, Sumter Plywood Corporation, and the defendant, Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, hereby submit this case for final judgment upon the stipulations made herein together with the stipulations referred to above dated 22 October 1976, together with the briefs heretofore filed by said parties."

Exhibits "A" and "B" referred to in the stipulation read:

AP

EXHIBIT "A"
"THIS AGREEMENT, made between

"THE ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, an Alabama corporation, its successors and assigns, hereinafter styled Railroad, party of the first part; and,

"INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE TOWN OF LIVINGSTON, Alabama, hereinafter styled Industry, party of the second part;

"WITNESSETH:
"THAT the PARTIES HERETO agree as follows:

"1. Railroad will operate, to afford Industry facilities for the receipt and shipment of carload freights of Industry over the lines of Railroad in accordance with lawfully published tariffs, three (3) industrial tracks, known and designated as Tracks 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter together sometimes styled tracks) at LIVINGSTON, Alabama, the locations of said tracks being substantially as shown in red and green on print of Drawing No. F-148, dated June 3, 1971, annexed hereto and made a part hereof. *Page 1142

"2. Railroad hereby consents to (i) the construction and maintenance by Industry of two rolling steel doors across said Track 2 at the locations where said industrial track enters and leaves the building of Industry; and (ii) the construction and maintenance by Industry of an overhead chip-blower pipe loader and overhead chip-bin loader (together hereinafter styled `Facilities') over said Tracks 1 and 2 at the locations shown on said print.

"3. Industry will acquire and hereby guarantees to Railroad full right and lawful authority to maintain and operate any portion of said industrial tracks which may be located beyond the limits of the right of way of Railroad, or upon or across any public highway and will, moreover, whenever requested by Railroad so to do and without cost to Railroad, vest or cause to be vested in Railroad, by good and sufficient deed in form to be approved by Railroad, a good marketable title, free from encumbrances, to such easement or right of way over and upon land located beyond the southwesterly boundary of Railroad's present main line right of way as may be required by railroad for the maintenance and operation of those portions of said tracks.

"4. Title to those portions of said tracks located as shown in green on said print are vested in Industry, and title to those portions of said tracks located as shown in red on said print are vested in Railroad. Railroad shall have entire control of said tracks and the operation thereof, and may use the same as well for the business of third persons, not parties hereto, as for that of Industry; provided that such use of said portions of track owned by Industry, as aforesaid, for the benefit of third persons shall not unreasonably interfere with the business of Industry.

"5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Royal Ins. Co. v. Whitaker Contracting Corp.
824 So. 2d 747 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2002)
Honeywell, Inc. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.
43 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. Minnesota, 1999)
Humana Med. Corp. v. Bagby Elevator Co.
653 So. 2d 972 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1995)
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall
643 So. 2d 551 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1994)
Borders v. Alabama Power Co.
547 So. 2d 446 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1989)
City of Montgomery v. JYD Intern., Inc.
534 So. 2d 592 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Newsome v. Trans Intern. Airlines
492 So. 2d 592 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1986)
Lloyd v. Service Corp. of Alabama
453 So. 2d 735 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1984)
Eastwood Lands, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp.
417 So. 2d 164 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1982)
Taylor v. Leedy and Co., Inc.
412 So. 2d 763 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1982)
Mitchell v. Moore
406 So. 2d 347 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1981)
Matthews v. Mountain Lodge Apartments, Inc.
388 So. 2d 935 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1980)
Industrial Tile, Inc. v. Stewart
388 So. 2d 171 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
359 So. 2d 1140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ala-great-southern-r-co-v-sumter-plywood-corp-ala-1978.