Northern Alabama Ry. Co. v. Gantt

Alabama Court of Appeals

Northern Alabama Ry. Co. v. Gantt

81 So. 852, 17 Ala. App. 74, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 95

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 1919

Docket8 Div. 602.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 So. 852 (Northern Alabama Ry. Co. v. Gantt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northern Alabama Ry. Co. v. Gantt, 81 So. 852, 17 Ala. App. 74, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 95 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1,2] The rule governing eases of this kind is declared to be:

“A motorman [or engineer] who sees a dog on or dangerously near the track ahead is entitled to act, or to refrain from acting, upon the presumption that it will get out of the way in time to avoid danger, or that it will not move into danger, provided there is nothing in the circumstances to indicate to a reasonably prudent operative that the dog is helpless to extricate itself from danger, or that it is indifferent to its surroundings.” Ala. City G. & A. Ry. Co. Lumpkin, 195 Ala. 290-294, 70 South. 162, 164, and authorities thefe cited.

In the instant case, according to the testimony of plaintiff’s witness, the dog was trotting along in the middle of defendant’s track, ahead of the engine, apparently indifferent to its surroundings, and far enough ahead of the engine to have avoided death, if it had been warned; of the danger. The engineer did not sound any alarm or slacken speed. The engineer admits seeing the dog, but claims to have blown the whistle and slowed the speed of the train. The question of negligence was one of fact for the court, and we are not prepared to say from this record that its finding was clearly error.

.We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1,2] The rule governing eases of this kind is declared to be:

“A motorman [or engineer] who sees a dog on or dangerously near the track ahead is entitled to act, or to refrain from acting, upon the presumption that it will get out of the way in time to avoid danger, or that it will not move into danger, provided there is nothing in the circumstances to indicate to a reasonably prudent operative that the dog is helpless to extricate itself from danger, or that it is indifferent to its surroundings.” Ala. City G. & A. Ry. Co. Lumpkin, 195 Ala. 290-294, 70 South. 162, 164, and authorities thefe cited.

In the instant case, according to the testimony of plaintiff’s witness, the dog was trotting along in the middle of defendant’s track, ahead of the engine, apparently indifferent to its surroundings, and far enough ahead of the engine to have avoided death, if it had been warned; of the danger. The engineer did not sound any alarm or slacken speed. The engineer admits seeing the dog, but claims to have blown the whistle and slowed the speed of the train. The question of negligence was one of fact for the court, and we are not prepared to say from this record that its finding was clearly error.

.We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 852, 17 Ala. App. 74, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-alabama-ry-co-v-gantt-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack