Turner v. Louisville & Nashville R. R.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Turner v. Louisville & Nashville R. R.

50 So. 124, 162 Ala. 586, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 329

DecidedMay 24, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 50 So. 124 (Turner v. Louisville & Nashville R. R.) 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

Turner v. Louisville & Nashville R. R., 50 So. 124, 162 Ala. 586, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 329 (Ala. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

The negligence described in the complaint is that Vogt, “negligently ordered the plaintiff to knock a hole in the car with- a sledge hammer.” Plea 2 charges the proximate contributory negligence as being due to the fact that the plaintiff “negligently allowed his hand to come so close to as to come in contact with the end or side of the car while knocking a hole therein with his tool.” The plea fully sets out the negligence of the plaintiff and the constituents of same; that is, that he negligently did what he was ordered to do, by permitting his hand to come too close to the car while knocking the hole. We think, “his tool,” as set up in the plea, necessarily meant the “sledge hammer,” as set out in' the complaint. This plea is clearly distinguishable from those held to he insufficient in the cases, cited by counsel for the appellant.

The judgment of the city court is affirmed. ' Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and McClellan and' 'Sayre. JJ., concur... .. .’ - ,

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

ANDERSON, J.

The negligence described in the complaint is that Vogt, “negligently ordered the plaintiff to knock a hole in the car with- a sledge hammer.” Plea 2 charges the proximate contributory negligence as being due to the fact that the plaintiff “negligently allowed his hand to come so close to as to come in contact with the end or side of the car while knocking a hole therein with his tool.” The plea fully sets out the negligence of the plaintiff and the constituents of same; that is, that he negligently did what he was ordered to do, by permitting his hand to come too close to the car while knocking the hole. We think, “his tool,” as set up in the plea, necessarily meant the “sledge hammer,” as set out in' the complaint. This plea is clearly distinguishable from those held to he insufficient in the cases, cited by counsel for the appellant.

The judgment of the city court is affirmed. ' Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and McClellan and' 'Sayre. JJ., concur... .. .’ - ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 124, 162 Ala. 586, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-louisville-nashville-r-r-ala-1909.