Alabama Cent. R. Co. v. Humphries

• Decision Date: 30 November 1910
• Citation: 169 Ala. 369,53 So. 1013
• Parties: ALABAMA CENT. R. CO. v. HUMPHRIES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

53 So. 1013

169 Ala. 369

ALABAMA CENT. R. CO. v. HUMPHRIES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 30, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; J. J. Ray, Judge.

Action by Cleve Humphries against the Alabama Central Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Count 10 is as follows: "Plaintiff claims of defendant $10,000 as damages, for that on, to wit, November 30, 1910, the defendant was operating a line of railway in Walker county Alabama; that plaintiff boarded said car at Manchester, in said county, and was riding on said car towards Jasper, in said county, in a car open and unrailed at the sides; that plaintiff was at the time under the influence of liquor; that the said railroad was new, and that the track was very rough and uneven; that the ties were not properly clamped, and the rails were not in proper adjustment; that the track at the place of the injury was wet, and the crossties and track unstable; that running at a fast rate of speed over the track at said point would cause the car to swerve greatly, to jolt and swing from side to side, so as to greatly endanger the safety of persons on the open car behind the engine; that these facts were well known to the engineer in charge of said train, yet with the full knowledge of the said fact he willfully, wantonly, or intentionally caused said engine to be propelled at a rapid rate of speed, and also a very dangerous rate of speed along said track, whereby the plaintiff was thrown from the said car." Then follows a catalogue of his injuries.

W. C Davis and A. F. Fite, for appellant.

Leith &amp Gunn, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Action for personal injuries. All of the counts of the complaint save that numbered 10 were eliminated from the case before the jury retired. So upon that count alone the verdict and judgment rest. The report of the appeal will contain that count.

The court below, consistent with the contention of counsel for plaintiff, assumed that the count stated a good cause of action as for an injury wantonly or intentionally inflicted. It was ruled in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v Brown, 121 Ala. 221, 25 So. 609, and in Same v Banks, 132 Ala. 471, 31 So. 573, and in Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad Co. v. Smith, 153 Ala. 127, 45 So. 57, 127 Am. St. Rep. 22, that, in order to ascribe an injury for proximate cause to wanton or intentional misconduct or omission,...