Lockman v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co.

77 So. 793, 116 Miss. 772
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 So. 793 (Lockman v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lockman v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 77 So. 793, 116 Miss. 772 (Mich. 1917).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant instituted this suit to recover damages for an injury alleged to have'been sustained by him while employed by appellee, because of the negligence of a fellow servant. At -the close of the evidence a motion to exclude was sustained, and the jury instructed to find for appellee, and there was a verdict and judgment accordingly. According to this evidence, appellant, with the assistance of a number of fellow servants, was engaged in loading iron rails upon one of appellant’s cars. These rails were being taken from an abandoned track, running from appellee’s road to a quarry several miles away. While one of the rails was being placed in the car it was given an “unusual” or sudden jerk by some of appellant’s fellow servants, which caused it to fall upon and injure his leg. Why this sudden or “unusual” jerk was given does not appear. There was no evidence of an engine being attached to the car at the time it was being loaded, or that it was to be moved by steam, electric, gas, gasolene, or lever power, other than the presumption arising that it was to be moved by appellee’s usual motive power.

The peremptory instruction should not have been given, for the reason that the jury would have been warranted in finding that appellant was injured because of the negligence of a fellow servant, while engaged in [779]*779loading a car for transportation oyer appellee’s railroad,, so that the case falls within chapter 194, Laws of 1908 (section 6684, Hemingway’s Code), and is rnled by Hunter v. Ingram-Day Lumber Co., 110 Miss. 744, 70 So. 901, and Railroad Co. v. Pontius, 157 U. S. 209, 15 Sup. Ct. 585, 39 L. Ed. 675.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

J. J. Newman Lumber Co. v. Ferrell
94 So. 791 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 So. 793, 116 Miss. 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockman-v-alabama-v-ry-co-miss-1917.