Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Anderson

Decision Date07 February 1896
Citation19 So. 516,109 Ala. 299
PartiesALABAMA G. S. R. CO. v. ANDERSON.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; H. A. Sharpe, Judge.

Action by Frank Anderson against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries, for the destruction of his carriage, and injuries to his horses resulting from the alleged negligence of defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The cause was tried upon the pleas of the general issue, and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The facts upon which this case were tried are, in substance, as follows: On the 15th day of July, 1893, the plaintiff, with a driver, was in a carriage belonging to the plaintiff, and was attempting to cross the railroad tracks on Twentieth street in Birmingham, Ala., coming from the south side, and going towards the north side, of the city. It was at night, but several electric lights were burning at the crossing. Twentieth street, at this place, is crossed by a good many railroad tracks, and is a principal crossing in the city, and the railroads use the same; constantly crossing the street day and night, in carrying on their business. The testimony showed that the parties in the carriage were thoroughly familiar with this crossing, and knew that it was constantly used by the railroads, as well as by pedestrians and those crossing in vehicles from one side of the street to the other. The testimony further showed, on the part of the plaintiff, that he did not stop before he started across this railroad crossing, but that he did look up and down the railroad tracks to see if any train was coming, and did not see any. His testimony further showed that a flagman, who was on the track, waved a white light, as a signal for him to cross, and that he started across, but, before he had gotten across, his carriage was struck by two cars which he said had been cut loose from the engine; and he himself was hurt, and his carriage crushed to pieces, and his harness and his horses damaged. His testimony showed, also, that, as he was coming along in his carriage, he and his driver, George Elliott, were engaged in conversation, and that they were crossing the railroad tracks at a trot. The evidence for the plaintiff showed further that his injuries were painful, and that he was in bed for some little time, and unable to work for nine weeks, and that his services were worth about a dollar and a half a day during the time he was unable to work. His evidence also showed that his carriage was worth from $350 to $400. He further proved that the cars, at the time they hit his carriage, were running at the rate of seven or eight miles an hour; that the cars were crossing the street from the west to the east side, and that he was crossing the street on the east side; and that his carriage was struck over on the east side of the crossing. His evidence further showed that he was not under the influence of liquor. The plaintiff also introduced in evidence five sections of the City Code of Birmingham, all of which have reference to the duties of the railroad companies and to the duties of the citizens of the city in crossing Twentieth street crossing. The defendant's evidence showed that the plaintiff was driving his carriage at the rate of about 10 miles an hour, in a trot, and that he did not stop before he started across the railroad tracks. The defendant's evidence further showed that the servants of the defendant had moved the train down from the east to the west side of the crossing in order that all persons who desired to cross might cross over the crossing; that, after the parties had all crossed, they started to move the train back across Twentieth street to the east side; that before the train got on Twentieth street, as the cars were approaching, the flagman was about 15 or 20 feet in front of the cars, walking along the track, waving his red light as a signal of danger for the people not to attempt to cross; that, when the car furthest from the engine (the train was backing) was about two-thirds of the way across Twentieth street, the foreman of the train stepped in between the cars to cut off the two cars which the evidence showed had been cut loose from the engine leaving seven cars still attached to the engine; that the foreman did not see the plaintiff approaching when he went in between the cars to cut them off; that he heard somebody driving at a rapid rate, but, his back being in that direction, he saw no one coming; that, as the foreman stepped out from between the cars which he had cut loose, he saw the plaintiff attempting to cross the track on the east side of Twentieth street, just in front of the moving cars; and that he gave a signal to the engineer to stop the train, and it was stopped as soon as possible. The testimony of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Harrison
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 16, 1919
    ......284 BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN R. CO. v. HARRISON. 6 Div. 767 Supreme Court of Alabama January 16, 1919 . . On. Rehearing, April 10, 1919. . . Appeal. from ... in injury to passengers thereon, was by Chief Justice. Anderson, as follows:. . . "The doctrine is well settled in this and most of the. other states, as ......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bethea
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 7, 1906
    ...81 S.W. 133; Railroad Co. v. Neubacher, 16 Ind. 38; Buchanan v. Railroad Co., 75 Iowa 393; Smith v. Railroad, 177 N.Y. 230; Railroad Co. v. Anderson, 109 Ala. 299; Robbins v. Railroad Co., 161 Mass. 145; v. Railroad Co., 103 Mich. 330; Hinkle v. Railroad Co., 109 N.C. 472; Railroad v. Hinds......
  • Cunningham Hardware Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 26, 1923
    ......327 CUNNINGHAM HARDWARE CO. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. 1 Div. 272. Supreme Court of Alabama April 26, 1923 . . Appeal. from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Claude A. Grayson, ... Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Stephenson, 189 Ala. 553,. 66 So. 495; A. G. S. R. Co. v. Anderson, 109 Ala. 299, 19 So. 516; L. & N. R. Co. v. Webb, 90 Ala. 185, 8 So. 518, 11 L. R. A. 674. ......
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Cates
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 15, 1924
    ... 100 So. 356 211 Ala. 282 SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. CATES. 6 Div. 988. Supreme Court of Alabama May 15, 1924 . . Appeal. from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Richard V. Evans,. ...358;. L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Stewart, 128 Ala. 330, 29 So. 562; A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 109 Ala. 299,. 19 So. 516. . . In. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Webb, 90 Ala. 185, 199, ......
  • 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