Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Chapman

• Citation: 3 So. 813,83 Ala. 453
• Parties: ALABAMA G. S. R. CO. v. CHAPMAN.
• Decision Date: 28 February 1888
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

3 So. 813

83 Ala. 453

ALABAMA G. S. R. CO. v. CHAPMAN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 28, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Sumter county; S. H. SPROTT, Judge.

This action was brought by Eliza Chapman against the appellant corporation to recover damages for personal injuries, and was commenced on the 28th July, 1884. The original complaint contained but a single count, which alleged "that it was the duty of the defendant to run its trains with due care and skill, and in the manner and under the regulations prescribed by law; that on the 15th August, 1883, while plaintiff was in a path which was then and there used by pedestrians, and had been for a long time, running parallel with defendant's road in the town of Livingston, the defendant's train threw a cow from the track, and against the plaintiff whereby plaintiff was greatly injured; that the engineer of said train failed to blow the whistle or ring the bell on entering into the corporate limits of said town, and to continue to blow the whistle or ring the bell, at intervals until he reached the depot, or passed through the said town and failed to use all means within his power known to skillful engineers in order to stop said train, and thereby prevent said injury; that the aforesaid injury was suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the said engineer failing to blow said whistle or ring said bell, and to use all the means known to skillful engineers to stop said train; (*) by reason of which negligence the said cow was thrown from the track and against plaintiff, and to her injury, as aforesaid; and plaintiff avers that by reason of such negligence she was greatly damaged," etc. After the reversal of the judgment, and the remandment of the cause, at the last term (80 Ala. 615, 2 South. Rep. 738,) the complaint was amended by inserting, at the placed marked (*), these words: "And the failure of the engineer then and there to exercise due care in keeping a lookout for obstructions on the track; and the plaintiff avers that the said engineer then and there failed to exercise due care in keeping a lookout for obstructions on the track." A second amendment was also made by adding another count, which averred that the train "was at the time running at great and unusual and reckless speed," and that the plaintiff's injuries were caused "by reason of the negligence and want of due care on the part of the said enginer in running said train at great,...