Central of Goergia Ry. Co. v. Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama

Central of Goergia Ry. Co. v. Williams

83 So. 63, 203 Ala. 339, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 251

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 26, 1919

Docket7 Div. 5.

StatusPublished

This text of 83 So. 63 (Central of Goergia Ry. Co. v. Williams) 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 Goergia Ry. Co. v. Williams, 83 So. 63, 203 Ala. 339, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 251 (Ala. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages on account of an alleged personal injury, charging with particularity in her complaint that “she was carried by the defendant as its passenger on one of said passenger trains from said Phcenix City to Smith Station, * * * and plaintiff avers that while she was in an effort to get off of said train at Smith Station, her destination, * * * the train was suddenly started with a quick jerk, and as a proximate consequence thereof she was caused to fall and be thrown,” etc. The second count omitted the words “with a quick jerk.” In all other respects it repeated the language of the first count quoted above. By the hypotheses of requested charges AA and 19 defendant, appellant sought to have tile jury pass upon a strongly developed tendency of the evidence, which, if believed, would bring the plaintiff’s case under the influence of Louisville & Nashville v. Dilburn, 178 Ala. 600, 59 South. 438; Southern v. Morgan, 171 Ala. 294, 54 South. 626, and Louisville & Nashville v. Lee, 97 Ala. 325, 12 South. 48. However, these charges did not predicate nonliability, but only that there was a variance between the complaint and the facts hypothesized. On the hypotheses of these charges there was a variance, and the plaintiff should not have been allowed to recover on her complaint. Central of Georgia v. McNab, 150 Ala. 332, 43 South. 222; Southern v. Hundley, 151 Ala. 378, 44 South. 195. “The plaintiff has elected to state his own ground of action, and if, in doing so, he has stated a particular fact, and by his mode of statement has inseparably connected it with the substance of the issue, so as to render proof of it essential, it is a misfortune of his own, which cannot be justly visited upon his adversary.” South & North Alabama v. Schaufler, 75 Ala. 136. Such was the case here, and these charges should have been given.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MAYFIELD, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur. McClellan and Gardner, jj., dissent.

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

SAYRE, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages on account of an alleged personal injury, charging with particularity in her complaint that “she was carried by the defendant as its passenger on one of said passenger trains from said Phcenix City to Smith Station, * * * and plaintiff avers that while she was in an effort to get off of said train at Smith Station, her destination, * * * the train was suddenly started with a quick jerk, and as a proximate consequence thereof she was caused to fall and be thrown,” etc. The second count omitted the words “with a quick jerk.” In all other respects it repeated the language of the first count quoted above. By the hypotheses of requested charges AA and 19 defendant, appellant sought to have tile jury pass upon a strongly developed tendency of the evidence, which, if believed, would bring the plaintiff’s case under the influence of Louisville & Nashville v. Dilburn, 178 Ala. 600, 59 South. 438; Southern v. Morgan, 171 Ala. 294, 54 South. 626, and Louisville & Nashville v. Lee, 97 Ala. 325, 12 South. 48. However, these charges did not predicate nonliability, but only that there was a variance between the complaint and the facts hypothesized. On the hypotheses of these charges there was a variance, and the plaintiff should not have been allowed to recover on her complaint. Central of Georgia v. McNab, 150 Ala. 332, 43 South. 222; Southern v. Hundley, 151 Ala. 378, 44 South. 195. “The plaintiff has elected to state his own ground of action, and if, in doing so, he has stated a particular fact, and by his mode of statement has inseparably connected it with the substance of the issue, so as to render proof of it essential, it is a misfortune of his own, which cannot be justly visited upon his adversary.” South & North Alabama v. Schaufler, 75 Ala. 136. Such was the case here, and these charges should have been given.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MAYFIELD, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur. McClellan and Gardner, jj., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 63, 203 Ala. 339, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-goergia-ry-co-v-williams-ala-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack