Mizzell v. Southern Railway Co.

31 So. 86, 132 Ala. 504, 1901 Ala. LEXIS 195
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 20, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 31 So. 86 (Mizzell v. Southern Railway Co.) 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
Mizzell v. Southern Railway Co., 31 So. 86, 132 Ala. 504, 1901 Ala. LEXIS 195 (Ala. 1901).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, C. J.

— It is settled in this State that persons have the right to cross a railroad track, at least when it is not fenced, wherever they have occasion to be beyond it. Of course the duty of exercising care must be observed. IBut no person has a right to use the track of a railroad as a road or path, and if a. person is injured by a passing engine or train while walking on the track, or on the ends of the crossties by the side of the track, he cannot recover damages therefor unless the trainmen willfully or wantonly ran against him or unless they failed to exercise due care to' avoid striking him. after they became aware of his peril, and such failure contributed to the injury. The uncontroverted evidence in this case shows that when Mizzell, the plaintiff, was stricken by the tender of the engine which was being run backwards, he was not in the act of merely crossing defendant’s track, but, having crossed over the rails, he was proceeding, along the side of the trade on the ends of the crossties. There was no evidence of willfulness or wantonness on the part of the trainmen. Nor was there any evidence tending to show that they were ever-aware of plaintiff’s presence, and hence there could be no ground for insistence that they were wanting in due care after coming to a knowledge of plaintiff’s peril. To the charge that defendant’s servants were [507]*507guilty of negligence in failing to give signals of approach, which setae of the evidence tends to support, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff in his attempted use of the track, is a complete defense; and the city court, property gave the affirmative charge, with hypothesis, for the defendant.

The rulings on demurrer to the complaint were innocuous whether good or bad.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Wright v. NeSmith
594 So. 2d 1210 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1992)
Johnson v. Hudson
420 So. 2d 85 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1982)
RELIANCE INSUR. CO. v. Jack's Construction Co.
360 So. 2d 292 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1978)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Kuykendall
247 So. 2d 356 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)
Burrow v. Leigeber
73 So. 2d 562 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1953)
Phillips v. Frederick
58 So. 2d 584 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Kilgore v. Kimbrell
163 So. 896 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Birmingham-Trussville Iron Co. v. Allied Engineers, Inc.
144 So. 1 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Thornton v. Southern Railway Co.
75 So. 4 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Atkinson v. Kelley
62 So. 441 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
B'ham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Nicholas
61 So. 361 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Hardy v. Killingsworth
56 So. 965 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Birrell v. Great Northern Railway Co.
112 P. 362 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)
Walker v. Southern Railway Co.
53 So. 994 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Oliver v. Williams
50 So. 937 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Emmett v. Hooper
47 So. 1006 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Wynn v. McCraney
46 So. 854 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Walter v. Alabama Great Southern R. R.
142 Ala. 474 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 So. 86, 132 Ala. 504, 1901 Ala. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mizzell-v-southern-railway-co-ala-1901.