Woodward Iron Co. v. Nunn
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.
Opinion
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.”"
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.