Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cummings
Decision Date | 13 December 1923 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 822. |
Citation | 100 So. 553,211 Ala. 381 |
Parties | ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. CUMMINGS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 29, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hale County; S. F. Hobbs, Judge.
Action for damages by W. O. Cummings against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company from the falling of his cow into a well on the right of way of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, Acts 1911, p. 449. Reversed and remanded.
Smith Wilkinson & Smith and R. B. Evins, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Thomas E. Knight, of Greensboro, for appellee.
258 U.S. 268, 42 S.Ct. 299, 66 L.Ed. 615, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that "the doctrine needs very careful statement not to make an unjust and impracticable requirement," and the court held that a landowner owes no general duty to keep his land safe even for children of tender years, or even from some hidden danger, if he has not directly or by implication invited them there. In its original application, and in some analogous cases, it has been accepted as sound law by this court. A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Crocker, 131 Ala. 584, 31 So. 561; Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl, 183 Ala. 429, 63 So. 196. But the doctrine was invented to save the case of children of tender years (Central of Georgia v. Robins, 209 Ala. 6, 95 So. 370), drawn into injury by attractive machinery and the like, and evidently should have no influence in the decision of this cause.
Plaintiff's case, as stated in the counts under consideration, rests upon the act quoted above, and the act must rest, if upon any substantial basis, upon the authority of the Legislature to exercise the police power for the suppression of nuisances.
And this (section 122a):
The foregoing is a statement of familiar general principles. Something further needs be said in respect of their application to the facts presented by the case in hand.
As we have said, the ground of liability in this case, if any, is that of a public nuisance causing special injury. Professor Jaggard adopts the following definition of a nuisance as being substantially that of Judge Cooley and as little objectionable as any:
"Nuisance is a distinct civil wrong, consisting of anything wrongfully done or permitted which interferes with or annoys another in the enjoyment of his legal rights." 2 Jaggard on Torts, p. 744.
Our cases have defined nuisance to the same effect, substantially. Cases cited to 10 Michie's Dig. p. 676, § 31. Assuming, for the purposes of this case, defendant's interest in its right of way to be the substantial equivalent of an ownership in fee-the act makes no discrimination between the proprietors of railroad rights of way and other landowners-and speaking therefore to the case of landowners in general, it can hardly be maintained that the owner who suffers an abandoned or unused well, cistern, or mining shaft to remain without inclosure upon his land thereby interferes with or annoys another in the enjoyment of his legal rights, unless, in the case of cattle running at large, the owner, by reason of the doctrine of A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Jones, 71 Ala. 487, is entitled to exact of owners upon whose land they may stray the duty to take precaution for the safety of such animals.
In special conditions the right of landowners to make and maintain excavations upon their own land is limited. The theory of such limitation and the circumstances in which it becomes operative are stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hayes v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 111 U.S. 235-236, 4 S.Ct. 369, 372 (28 L.Ed. 410), and we can do no better than to quote:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mackintosh Co. v. Wells
... ... licensee (A.G.S.R. Co. v. Cummings, 211 Ala. 381, ... 100 So. 553, 33 A.L.R. 439), but was an invitee ... injury to such invitee. Alabama By-Products Corp. v. Crosby, ... supra; Doullut & Williams v. Hoffman, 4 Ala. 33, ... 86 So. 73; Southern Ry. Co. v. Bates, 194 Ala. 78, ... 69 So. 131, L.R.A. 1916A, 510; Alabama ... ...
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Green
...or laying a trap for him. Erie R. Co. v. Hilt, 247 U.S. 97, 38 S.Ct. 435, 62 L.Ed. 1003. See also, Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cummings, 211 Ala. 381, 100 So. 553, 33 A.L.R. 439. Where the injured party is a trespasser, a trap or pitfall exists only if the landowner prepares the danger......
-
Cox v. Alabama Water Co.
... ... was a hidden danger. Plaintiff avers that children in great ... numbers and with great frequency played around said pool upon ... the premises of the ... Athey v. Tennessee ... Coal, Iron & R. Co., 191 Ala. 646, 68 So. 154; ... Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cummings, 211 Ala ... 384, 100 So. 553, 33 A.L.R. 439; Sloss I. & S. Co. v ... ...
-
Bolin v. State
...or otherwise interfere with the rights of others,' and what is a nuisance is a judicial question.' Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cummings, 211 Ala. 381, 100 So. 553, 555, 33 A.L.R. 439. We think the stated provision has another vice. That part of the statute which stamps as unlawful the ......