Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Smith
Citation | 209 Ala. 301,96 So. 239 |
Decision Date | 26 April 1923 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 855. |
Parties | ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. SMITH. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. B. Aird, Judge.
Action for damages by Almoth E. Smith against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.
Smith Wilkinson & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Nesbit & Sadler, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The action is for the negligent killing of plaintiff's dog by the defendant railroad company.
Besides the general issue, defendant pleaded specially as follows:
"The plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence that proximately contributed to the death of his dog in this Plaintiff knew that said dog had a roving, rambling disposition, and that said dog frequented the defendant's railroad track and was liable to be struck by passing trains, and, notwithstanding said knowledge, plaintiff negligently failed to do anything to prevent said dog from being upon or dangerously near defendant's railroad track on the occasion complained of, which conduct on plaintiff's part proximately contributed to the death of his said dog."
A demurrer to this plea was sustained; the ground of objection being that the negligence averred did not constitute contributory negligence. We think the demurrer was well sustained.
Said the court:
Plaintiff was under no duty to keep his dog off of defendant's roadway, and his failure to do so was not, in any legal sense, the proximate cause of the dog's injury. A G. S. R. R. Co. v. McDaniel, 192 Ala. 639, 646, 69 So. 60.
It will be observed that defendant's plea predicates contributory negligence upon three facts: (1) Plaintiff knew that the dog was of a roving disposition, and that he often went upon defendant's roadway; (2) plaintiff knew that the dog was, in that event, "liable" to be struck by passing trains; and (3) plaintiff "negligently failed to do anything to prevent said dog from being upon or dangerously near defendant's railroad track on the occasion complained of." In legal effect, the plea asserts that, because of plaintiff's general knowledge that the dog often went on the track, and might therefore be struck by a train, it was plaintiff's duty to either prevent the dog from running at large, or else to attend his movements and keep him away from dangerous places. This is, of course, not the law.
The phrase "liable to be struck" is not the equivalent of "probably would be struck." The word "liable" refers to a future possible or probable happening which may not actually occur. An event is liable if its occurrence is within the range of possibility. Beasley v. Linehan Transfer Co., 148 Mo. 413, 50 S.
W. 87, 89; Home Ins. Co. v. P. & U. Ry. Co., 178 Ill. 64, 52 N.E. 862, 863; Williams v. Southern Ry. Co., 119 N.C. 746, 26 S.E. 32; 5 Words and Phrases, 4110. Moreover, courts judicially know that dogs as a class, are intelligent enough to understand the danger of being run over by trains or other vehicles, and alert enough to avoid such danger under all ordinary conditions. Ala. City, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lumpkin, 195 Ala. 290, 294, 70 So. 162. Hence the allegation that a dog that goes on a railroad track is "liable" to be struck by a passing train is essentially the statement of a mere danger or possibility, too remote and conjectural to impose upon his owner any precautionary duty in the premises.
At the conclusion of the testimony the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Dickson
...... Denied June 19, 1924. . . Appeal. from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge. . . Action. for damages by H. T. Dickson against the Southern Railway. ... duties for defendant while such defendant was engaged in. commerce between the states of Alabama and Tennessee, and. plaintiff was aiding in his employment for defendant in. such commerce ... severely bruising and injuring him on other parts of his. body, causing him great physical pain and mental anguish,. causing him to lose much time from his labors and the. ......
- Abbeville Live Stock Co. v. Walden
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Sheffield
...the dog off the track to avoid danger from passing trains. Under our decisions, the pleas were subject to the demurrer. A.G.S.R.R. Co. v. Smith, 209 Ala. 301, 96 So. 239; A.G.S.R.R. Co. v. McDaniel, 192 Ala. 639, 69 So. Ala. City, G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Lumpkin, 195 Ala. 290, 70 So. 162. The ev......
-
Harris v. State
...this statute a case cannot be reopened for additional evidence after the conclusion of the argument." Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. v. Smith, 209 Ala. 301, 96 So. 239 (1923). See also Davis v. State, 20 Ala.App. 463, 466, 103 So. 73 (1925), wherein the request for additional evidence c......