Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Guest

Alabama Court of Appeals

Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Guest

77 So. 241, 16 Ala. App. 252, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 295

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 27, 1917

Docket6 Div. 282.

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 241 (Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Guest) 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

Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Guest, 77 So. 241, 16 Ala. App. 252, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 295 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The cause was tried on four counts, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5, to which were interposed pleas of general issue and contributory negligence. The only assignments of error are to the court’s refusal to give, at the request of the 'defendant, the general charge, separately as to each count, and in failing to give a charge submitting to the jury the question of contributory negligence on the x>art of plaintiff.

The first count attributes plaintiff’s injuries to the negligence of James Gould, an alleged superintendent. The second, to a defect in the works, ways, machinery, or plant, etc., in that the ground floor was defective. The third, to negligence in failing to furnish a reasonably safe place in which to work. The fifth, to the negligence of Harris, the superintendent. It is not questioned that each *253 count of the complaint above mentioned states a good cause of action, and we find that There was sufficient evidence upon which to submit each of them to the jury. John v. Birmingham Realty Co., 172 Ala. 603, 55 South. 801; Tobler v. Pioneer Mining Co., 166 Ala. 482-516, 52 South. 86.

There was absolutely no evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff was negligent. So far as appears, he was going about his work in a careful maimer, undertaking to prop a car as was usually done in similar cases, by those engaged in car repairing for defendant, with no reason to believe that the floor of the shop was other than it had been at other points where occasion had demanded the driving of iron bolts to secure props to cars. Therefore the court did not err in refusing to submit to the jury the question of contributory negligence, as requested by the defendant.

There is no error in the record, 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 cause was tried on four counts, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5, to which were interposed pleas of general issue and contributory negligence. The only assignments of error are to the court’s refusal to give, at the request of the 'defendant, the general charge, separately as to each count, and in failing to give a charge submitting to the jury the question of contributory negligence on the x>art of plaintiff.

The first count attributes plaintiff’s injuries to the negligence of James Gould, an alleged superintendent. The second, to a defect in the works, ways, machinery, or plant, etc., in that the ground floor was defective. The third, to negligence in failing to furnish a reasonably safe place in which to work. The fifth, to the negligence of Harris, the superintendent. It is not questioned that each *253 count of the complaint above mentioned states a good cause of action, and we find that There was sufficient evidence upon which to submit each of them to the jury. John v. Birmingham Realty Co., 172 Ala. 603, 55 South. 801; Tobler v. Pioneer Mining Co., 166 Ala. 482-516, 52 South. 86.

There was absolutely no evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff was negligent. So far as appears, he was going about his work in a careful maimer, undertaking to prop a car as was usually done in similar cases, by those engaged in car repairing for defendant, with no reason to believe that the floor of the shop was other than it had been at other points where occasion had demanded the driving of iron bolts to secure props to cars. Therefore the court did not err in refusing to submit to the jury the question of contributory negligence, as requested by the defendant.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 241, 16 Ala. App. 252, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birmingham-southern-r-co-v-guest-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack