Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Robins

95 So. 370, 209 Ala. 12, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 317
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 4, 1923·No. 7 Div. 288.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

In a companion ease, Cent. of Ga. R. R. Co. v. Harold Robins, 95 South. 367, 1 we have held that the plaintiff, a minor son 15 years of age, could not recover as fo-r an alleged breach of duty by defendant in allowing him to play upon defendant’s unguarded turntable, in the course of which play he was injured. That conclusion is fatal to any right to recovery by the plaintiff in this case, who sues for damages for injuries suffered by himself as parent, founded upon the same alleged breach of duty.

For the reasons stated in the other case, the motion to strike the bill of exceptions must be overruled, and the judgment reversed, for refusal to give the general affirmative charge for defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MeOLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
1

Ante, p. 6. .

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

Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Robins, 95 So. 370, 209 Ala. 12, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 317 (Ala. 1923).

95 So. 370 (Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Robins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Richardson
171 So. 2d 96 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1965)
Hereford v. Meek
52 S.E.2d 740 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1949)
Arritt v. Fisher
282 N.W. 200 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Gumienny v. Hess
280 N.W. 809 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Hall v. Royce
192 A. 193 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1937)
Barker v. Saunders
182 S.E. 289 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1935)
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cummings
100 So. 553 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)