Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Thomas

Alabama Court of Appeals

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Thomas

95 So. 53, 19 Ala. App. 76, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 5

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1923

Docket4 Div. 785.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 So. 53 (Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 95 So. 53, 19 Ala. App. 76, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 5 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1] The only error insisted on in brief as to the court’s rulings on the pleadings is that the allegations describing plaintiff’s injuries in counts 4 and 5 are not sufficient. The complaint alleges: “Her arm was broken and she was otherwise seriously injured.” This was a sufficient allegation of injuries growing out of and connected with the broken arm, but would not authorize proof of other injuries not connected with the broken arm. The cases cited by appellant were not so definite.

[21 The second count charged wantonness as the direct act of the corporation, and, while there was perhaps sufficient evidence tending to show wantonness on the part of defendant’s employSs, while acting within the line and scope of their employment, such is not the charge as made by count 2 of the complaint. T’nder the following authorities the general charge as requested by defendant should have been given as to count 2: Newberry v. Atkinson, 184 Ala. 567, 64 South. 46; B. R. L. & P. Co. v. Hayes, 153 Ala. 189, 44 South. 1032; L. & N. R. R. v. Lacey, 17 Ala. App. 146, 82 South. 636; Ex parte L. & N. R. R., 203 Ala. 328, 83 South. 52.

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

Reversed and remanded.

On Rehearing.

Former opinion withdrawn. Opinion substituted. Judgment of affirmance set aside, and judgment reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1] The only error insisted on in brief as to the court’s rulings on the pleadings is that the allegations describing plaintiff’s injuries in counts 4 and 5 are not sufficient. The complaint alleges: “Her arm was broken and she was otherwise seriously injured.” This was a sufficient allegation of injuries growing out of and connected with the broken arm, but would not authorize proof of other injuries not connected with the broken arm. The cases cited by appellant were not so definite.

[21 The second count charged wantonness as the direct act of the corporation, and, while there was perhaps sufficient evidence tending to show wantonness on the part of defendant’s employSs, while acting within the line and scope of their employment, such is not the charge as made by count 2 of the complaint. T’nder the following authorities the general charge as requested by defendant should have been given as to count 2: Newberry v. Atkinson, 184 Ala. 567, 64 South. 46; B. R. L. & P. Co. v. Hayes, 153 Ala. 189, 44 South. 1032; L. & N. R. R. v. Lacey, 17 Ala. App. 146, 82 South. 636; Ex parte L. & N. R. R., 203 Ala. 328, 83 South. 52.

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

Reversed and remanded.

On Rehearing.

Former opinion withdrawn. Opinion substituted. Judgment of affirmance set aside, and judgment reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 53, 19 Ala. App. 76, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-line-r-co-v-thomas-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack