Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Moore

95 So. 207, 19 Ala. App. 73, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 2
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 9, 1923
Docket6 Div. 90.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 So. 207 (Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Moore, 95 So. 207, 19 Ala. App. 73, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 2 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1,2] The rule for pleading^ negligence has been so often stated it would' seem to be unnecessary here to restate it. Very general averments of negligence are sufficient in pleading, but facts must be alleged from which a duty naturally follows to plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and injury and damage following as a proximate result. 10 Mitchie’s Dig. 594, par. 53; Camp Transfer Co. v. Davenport, 15 Ala. App. 507, 74 South. 156. Neither counts A or B meet the requirements of the rule. The demurrer to each count should have been sustained.

The evidence was not sufficient to authorize a submission of the case to the jury. The general charge should have been given for defendant. ,

For the errors pointed out the judgment is-reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Davidson v. State
100 So. 641 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 So. 207, 19 Ala. App. 73, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-great-southern-r-co-v-moore-alactapp-1923.