Alabama City, G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Bates

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtANDERSON, J.
Citation46 So. 776,155 Ala. 347
Decision Date14 May 1908
PartiesALABAMA CITY, G. & A. RY. CO. v. BATES.

46 So. 776

155 Ala. 347

ALABAMA CITY, G. & A. RY. CO.
v.
BATES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 14, 1908


Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; J. W. Inzer, Judge.

Action by Perryman Bates against the Alabama City, Gadsden & Attalla Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Action for damages for injuries received in an alleged attempt to take passage on one of defendant's electric cars. Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $4,000. For the pleadings and facts in this case, see 149 Ala. 489, 43 So. 98. The following portions of the oral charge were excepted to by the defendant:

"Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under the circumstances or the situation or doing that which a prudent person under existing circumstances would not have done."
"If plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's car, under the rules I will give you, it was the duty of the defendant as a common carrier of persons to use care, skill, and diligence towards plaintiff, and such care as careful and prudent persons engaged in a like business would exercise. And if the jury find that the defendant did not use such care, and that as a proximate result of said failure plaintiff received the injuries complained of in this suit, then the jury should find for the plaintiff, unless you find that he was guilty of contributory negligence which proximately contributed to his injuries, as will be shown in the subsequent part of this charge."
"Now, then, gentlemen, if you believe reasonably from the testimony in this case and you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff presented himself on the platform there, and was approaching the entrance into the car, or had come near to the place of entrance, or had put his hands upon one of the handholds and raised his foot with the purpose of entering the car, and the conductor knew this condition of affairs, then I charge you, gentlemen, that man became and was from and after that time a passenger, or at least for the time being a passenger, on defendant's road."

"Proximate cause, as applied to contributory negligence, is want of ordinary care upon the part of the person injured by the wrongful act of another."

"Now, then, gentlemen, go back a little. I say to you that if plaintiff in this action was upon the platform that night, and near that car, and the conductor understood from expressed words or from the promise of the plaintiff himself that it was his bona fide intention to take passage upon that car...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Batson v. State, 6 Div. 798
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1927
    ...of matters duly presented by that ruling and appeal therefrom. Sellers v. Dickert, 194 Ala. 661, 69 So. 604; Ala., etc., Co. v. Bates, 155 Ala. 347, 46 So. 776; McGeever v. Terre Haute Co., 201 Ala. 290, 78 So. 66. This is the general rule in the premises. 1 A.L.R. 725. It was applied in Al......
  • Frazer v. First Nat. Bank, 1 Div. 973
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1938
    ...C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 338, 70 So. 7; Wade v. Kay, 210 Ala. 122, 97 So. 129; Alabama City G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Bates, 155 Ala. 347, 46 So. 776, and McGowin v. McGowin, 232 Ala. 601, 169 So. 232. Such a reference to the antecedent decisions is necessary in determining the mino......
  • Frank v. State, (No. 67.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • November 14, 1914
    ...Lumber, etc., Co. v. Read, 65 Fla. 61, 61 South. 125; Bohanan v. Darden, 7 Ala. App. 220, 60 South. 955; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Bates, 155 Ala. 347, 46 South. 776 (2); McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. 176; Westfall v. Wait, 165 Ind. 353, 73 N. E. 1089, 6 Ann. Cas. 788; 1 Chamberlayn......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Webb
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 27, 1933
    ...to his becoming a passenger.' Ala. City, G. & A. R. R. v. Bates, 149 Ala. 490, 43 So. 98, 99, and cases there cited; Id., 155 Ala. 348, 46 So. 776. While the foregoing is the general definition and rule as to the relationship of passenger and carrier, the books hold that it is the duty of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Batson v. State, 6 Div. 798
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1927
    ...of matters duly presented by that ruling and appeal therefrom. Sellers v. Dickert, 194 Ala. 661, 69 So. 604; Ala., etc., Co. v. Bates, 155 Ala. 347, 46 So. 776; McGeever v. Terre Haute Co., 201 Ala. 290, 78 So. 66. This is the general rule in the premises. 1 A.L.R. 725. It was applied in Al......
  • Frazer v. First Nat. Bank, 1 Div. 973
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1938
    ...C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 338, 70 So. 7; Wade v. Kay, 210 Ala. 122, 97 So. 129; Alabama City G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Bates, 155 Ala. 347, 46 So. 776, and McGowin v. McGowin, 232 Ala. 601, 169 So. 232. Such a reference to the antecedent decisions is necessary in determining the mino......
  • Frank v. State, (No. 67.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • November 14, 1914
    ...Lumber, etc., Co. v. Read, 65 Fla. 61, 61 South. 125; Bohanan v. Darden, 7 Ala. App. 220, 60 South. 955; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Bates, 155 Ala. 347, 46 South. 776 (2); McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. 176; Westfall v. Wait, 165 Ind. 353, 73 N. E. 1089, 6 Ann. Cas. 788; 1 Chamberlayn......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Webb
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 27, 1933
    ...to his becoming a passenger.' Ala. City, G. & A. R. R. v. Bates, 149 Ala. 490, 43 So. 98, 99, and cases there cited; Id., 155 Ala. 348, 46 So. 776. While the foregoing is the general definition and rule as to the relationship of passenger and carrier, the books hold that it is the duty of t......
  • 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