Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Fannin

Alabama Court of Appeals

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Fannin

115 So. 850, 22 Ala. App. 374, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 69

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 1928

Docket4 Div. 351.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 115 So. 850 (Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Fannin) 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

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Fannin, 115 So. 850, 22 Ala. App. 374, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 69 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The plaintiff’s mule was killed by being struck by one of defendant’s locomotives. The plaintiff having made out a prima facie case, the burden rested on defendant to acquit itself of negligence.

As defendant’s locomotive and train of 40 cars were approaching the point on its track where the plaintiff’s mule was killed, at a rate of speed variously estimated at from 20 to 40 miles per hour, and at which place was a side track upon which was standing a freight car and a fiat car loaded with logs, the plaintiff’s mule came from between the flat ears coming into the vision of defendant’s engineer 15 or 20 steps ahead of the locomotive and ran down the track in front of the ■locomotive, and within the vision of the defendant’s engineer 137 steps, when it was struck by the locomotive, and so injured that it had to be killed. As soon as the mule came on the track, the engineer began, and continued, to blow the whistle until the mule was struck, but, according to some of the testimony, did not apply the brakes until about the time the mule was struck. This, under the facts, make a question for the jury as to whether the defendant had acquitted itself of negligence. It may not have been possible to have stopped the train within the distance of 157 steps, yet, if the brakes had been promptly applied, the speed of the train might have been so reduced that the mule would not have been struck. The question was for the jury, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The plaintiff’s mule was killed by being struck by one of defendant’s locomotives. The plaintiff having made out a prima facie case, the burden rested on defendant to acquit itself of negligence.

As defendant’s locomotive and train of 40 cars were approaching the point on its track where the plaintiff’s mule was killed, at a rate of speed variously estimated at from 20 to 40 miles per hour, and at which place was a side track upon which was standing a freight car and a fiat car loaded with logs, the plaintiff’s mule came from between the flat ears coming into the vision of defendant’s engineer 15 or 20 steps ahead of the locomotive and ran down the track in front of the ■locomotive, and within the vision of the defendant’s engineer 137 steps, when it was struck by the locomotive, and so injured that it had to be killed. As soon as the mule came on the track, the engineer began, and continued, to blow the whistle until the mule was struck, but, according to some of the testimony, did not apply the brakes until about the time the mule was struck. This, under the facts, make a question for the jury as to whether the defendant had acquitted itself of negligence. It may not have been possible to have stopped the train within the distance of 157 steps, yet, if the brakes had been promptly applied, the speed of the train might have been so reduced that the mule would not have been struck. The question was for the jury, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 850, 22 Ala. App. 374, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-line-r-co-v-fannin-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack