Alabama Chemical Co. v. Niles

Decision Date30 June 1908
PartiesALABAMA CHEMICAL CO. v. NILES.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.

Action by Joe Niles against the Alabama Chemical Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

From what is said in the opinion concerning the complaint and demurrers thereto, it is deemed unnecessary to set them out. The special pleas were as follows:

"(2) And for further answer to each of said counts of the complaint the defendant says that plaintiff could not recover in said suit, for that the plaintiff himself is guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to the injuries complained of, in that at the time he sustained said injuries the plaintiff, of his own accord and without direction from any one whose orders he was required to obey, negligently left the place of safety at which he was standing, and went up to a platform near a pulley upon one of defendant's machines, at which the injury occurred and there negligently came in contact with said pulley, or the belt that had been upon said pulley, and that said negligence on plaintiff's part proximately contributed to the injuries complained of.
"(3) Defendant says that plaintiff was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to the injuries complained of, in that plaintiff negligently and voluntarily left the place he was standing upon the floor of defendant's factory in front of one of defendant's bagging machines, and negligently proceeded to get upon a platform which was in close proximity to the pulley which was used in operating the said bagging machine of defendant, and the belt which was or had been upon said pulley, and that said platform was several feet, to wit, five or seven feet above the floor on which plaintiff had been standing, and that after plaintiff had so negligently gotten upon said platform he negligently and without reasonable care allowed or permitted his body or his clothing to come into contact with said pulley, or the belt which had been operating said pulley, or the shaft on which said pulley was working, and at said time said pulley and shaft were revolving, and by reason of said negligence in so permitting or allowing his body or his clothing to come in contact with said pulley belt, or shaft the plaintiff sustained the injuries complained of.

"(4) Defendant says that at the time plaintiff sustained the injuries complained of he was not engaged in the performance of any duty for which he was employed by defendant, or to which he had been assigned by defendant, or by any one in defendant's employment whose orders the plaintiff was bound to obey; that at the time or just before sustaining said injuries plaintiff voluntarily left the performance of his duties to which he had been assigned by the person having charge and control of him, and came into defendant's factory and near to what is known as a 'bagging machine' in defendant's fertilizer factory; that at said time the said bagging machine had been stopped for the purpose of having the same unchoked, and that one of defendant's employés was unchoking the machine; that while so standing in front of said machine, and without being ordered by defendant or any one of its employés whose orders plaintiff was required to obey, plaintiff negligently and voluntarily left the floor where he was standing, and proceeded to go upon a platform several feet above said floor, to wit, seven or ten feet; that above said platform to wit, three or four feet, there was at that time a pulley revolving upon a shaft attached to a post, upon which pulley there had been a belt for the purpose of running said bagging machine, and after so negligently going upon said platform plaintiff negligently permitted or allowed his personal clothing to come in contact with a puiley which was suspended...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Hartline
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1943
    ... ... 116 TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO. v. HARTLINE. 6 Div. 57. Supreme Court of Alabama January 28, 1943 ... Rehearing ... Denied Feb. 25, 1943 ... [11 So.2d 834] ... v ... Ashley, 159 Ala. 145, 48 So. 981; Alabama Chemical ... Co. v. Niles, 156 Ala. 298, 47 So. 239. We hold the ... record shows a specific ruling on ... ...
  • Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. McCree
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 17, 1924
    ... ... So of Sivoly v. Scott, 56 Ala. 555, and Alabama ... Power Co. v. Fergusen, 205 Ala. 204, 87 So. 796. These ... authorities have no application to ... 87 So. 688, Alabama Power Co. v. Fergusen, 205 Ala ... 204, 87 So. 796, and Alabama Chemical Co. v. Niles, ... 156 Ala. 298, 303, 47 So. 239, are without application. The ... demurrers are ... ...
  • Percoff v. Solomon
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 11, 1953
    ...and if either aspect were good, the decree is due to be affirmed. Badham v. Johnston, 239 Ala. 48, 193 So. 420. Cf. Alabama Chemical Co. v. Niles, 156 Ala. 298, 47 So. 239. See The Alabama Lawyer, Vol. 12 (1951), pp. 344, 353, The Demurrer in Equity, by Judge E. N. Creel. This is merely a c......
  • McDowell v. McDowell
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • May 12, 1971
    ...and if either aspect were good, the decree is due to be affirmed. Badham v. Johnston, 239 Ala. 48, 193 So. 420. Cf. Alabama Chemical Co. v. Niles, 156 Ala. 298, 47 So. 239. See the Alabama Lawyer, Vol. 12 (1951), pp. 344, 353, The Demurrer in Equity, by Judge E.N. Creel. This is merely a co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT