Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Triplett

Supreme Court of Alabama

Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Triplett

58 So. 108, 177 Ala. 258, 1912 Ala. LEXIS 208

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 16, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 58 So. 108 (Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Triplett) 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

Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Triplett, 58 So. 108, 177 Ala. 258, 1912 Ala. LEXIS 208 (Ala. 1912).

Pincite

Opinions

SIMPSON, J.

This case is referred to this court by the Court of Appeals to decide whether or not count 4 of the complaint is subject to the demurrer interposed to the same. As shown by the record and reference, said count alleges that “it was the duty of the defendant to furnish him with a reasonable safe place in which to work and perform his duties.”. Under the decisions of this court, the expression quoted does not correctly state the law, as the duty to afford the servant a reasonably safe place in which to work is not unqualified.”—Meriweather v. Sayre Mining & Manufacturing Co., 161 Ala. 442, 49 South. 916, 920; Huyck v. McNerney, 163 Ala. 244, 50 South. 926.

The case of Smith v. Watkins & Donelson, 172 Ala. 502, 55 South. 611, draws the distinction between the count in this case and one which does not contain any such statement as to the duty of the master. However, neither of the causes of demurrer assigned points out the defect in count 4. Consequently the count was not subject to the demurrer.

All the Justices concur, save Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.'

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

SIMPSON, J.

This case is referred to this court by the Court of Appeals to decide whether or not count 4 of the complaint is subject to the demurrer interposed to the same. As shown by the record and reference, said count alleges that “it was the duty of the defendant to furnish him with a reasonable safe place in which to work and perform his duties.”. Under the decisions of this court, the expression quoted does not correctly state the law, as the duty to afford the servant a reasonably safe place in which to work is not unqualified.”—Meriweather v. Sayre Mining & Manufacturing Co., 161 Ala. 442, 49 South. 916, 920; Huyck v. McNerney, 163 Ala. 244, 50 South. 926.

The case of Smith v. Watkins & Donelson, 172 Ala. 502, 55 South. 611, draws the distinction between the count in this case and one which does not contain any such statement as to the duty of the master. However, neither of the causes of demurrer assigned points out the defect in count 4. Consequently the count was not subject to the demurrer.

All the Justices concur, save Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 So. 108, 177 Ala. 258, 1912 Ala. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloss-sheffield-steel-iron-co-v-triplett-ala-1912.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack