Woodward Iron Co. v. Nunn

88 So. 659, 205 Ala. 543, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 534
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 21, 1921
Docket6 Div. 288.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 88 So. 659 (Woodward Iron Co. v. Nunn) 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
Woodward Iron Co. v. Nunn, 88 So. 659, 205 Ala. 543, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 534 (Ala. 1921).

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

The suit, by the father for injuries to a minor son, was based on the common-law liability of the master to the employé, stated in count 1 and count 4 as amended. The general affirmative charges requested as to each count were refused.

The suit by the injured employé against this defendant growing out of the same alleged breada of duty and injury is reported as Woodward Iron Co. v. Nunn, 204 Ala. 190, 85 South. 485, in which it is declared that—

“The mine was aiot inherently dangerous when the plaintiff was placed therein lay the master, and that the danger subsequently arose as the result of negligence as to delegable duties, and that the defendant was therefore entitled to the general charge as to count 1.”"

[1,2] The master’s duty was and is to provide and maintain a reasonably safe place for its employé to work; (a) the duty to provide such a safe place being nondelegable, (b) The duty to maintain the place when so provided in a reasonably safe condition may be delegated by the master to its employé. South Brilliant Coal Co. v. McCollum, 200 Ala. 543, 544, 76 South. 901; Seagle v. Stith Coal Co., 202 Ala. 3, 79 South. 301; Woodward Iron Co. v. Maxey, 200 Ala. 555, 76 South. 913; Langhorne v. Simington, 188 Ala. 337, 344, 66 South. 85.

The observation made on appeal of Woodward Iron Co. v. Nunn, supra, is sufficient to indicate that the affirmative charge should have been given as- to counts 1 and 4, as requested by defendant in writing on the trial in this case.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLEDDAN and SOMERYILDE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Staples
551 So. 2d 949 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1989)
Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Co. v. Coleman
394 So. 2d 334 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1981)
Foreman v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc.
54 So. 2d 499 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 So. 659, 205 Ala. 543, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodward-iron-co-v-nunn-ala-1921.