Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Turner

Supreme Court of Alabama

Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Turner

40 So. 355, 145 Ala. 441, 1906 Ala. LEXIS 481

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 10, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 40 So. 355 (Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Turner) 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

Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Turner, 40 So. 355, 145 Ala. 441, 1906 Ala. LEXIS 481 (Ala. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

TYSON, J.

The cow was killed near a public road crossing by the passenger train of defendant running against her and knocking her from the track. This made out a prima facie case for plaintiff, and imposed upon defendant the burden of acquitting itself of negligence. — Code 1896, §§ 3440, 3443 ; So. Ry. Co. v. Reaves, 129 Ala. 457, 29 South. 594 ; A. G. S. Ry. Co. v. Boyd, 124 Ala. 525, 27 South. 408. Under the' testimony it is clear that the affirmative charge, requested by defendant, was properly refused. — L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Cochran, 105 Ala. 354, 16 South. 797. Neither of the other charges refused to defendant postulated the fact that the engineer was keeping a proper lookout for animals on or in close proximity to the track, or that the train Avas properly equipped. — Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. [444]*444Stark, 126 Ala. 368, 28 South. 411 ; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Reaves, supra. They were therefore properly refused. Affirmed.

Dowdell, Simpson, and Anderson, JJ., concur.

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

TYSON, J.

The cow was killed near a public road crossing by the passenger train of defendant running against her and knocking her from the track. This made out a prima facie case for plaintiff, and imposed upon defendant the burden of acquitting itself of negligence. — Code 1896, §§ 3440, 3443 ; So. Ry. Co. v. Reaves, 129 Ala. 457, 29 South. 594 ; A. G. S. Ry. Co. v. Boyd, 124 Ala. 525, 27 South. 408. Under the' testimony it is clear that the affirmative charge, requested by defendant, was properly refused. — L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Cochran, 105 Ala. 354, 16 South. 797. Neither of the other charges refused to defendant postulated the fact that the engineer was keeping a proper lookout for animals on or in close proximity to the track, or that the train Avas properly equipped. — Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. [444]*444Stark, 126 Ala. 368, 28 South. 411 ; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Reaves, supra. They were therefore properly refused. Affirmed.

Dowdell, Simpson, and Anderson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 So. 355, 145 Ala. 441, 1906 Ala. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-ga-ry-co-v-turner-ala-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack