Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Davis, 6 Div. 191.
Decision Date | 22 June 1944 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 191. |
Citation | 246 Ala. 64,18 So.2d 737 |
Parties | ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v DAVIS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 25, 1944.
Benners Burr, Stokely & McKamy, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Jackson Rives & Pettus, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The question on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of negligence of appellant or any of its employees which proximately caused the death of plaintiff's intestate (Davis) under the Employers' Liability Act of Congress. 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. That question does not involve contributory negligence by decedent. If there was sufficient evidence of appellant's negligence decedent's contributory negligence would be material for certain purposes. But decedent's conduct on that occasion is material to determine whether appellant or its employees were negligent proximately causing his death.
Davis the decedent, was what was termed head brakeman on a freight train. That meant that his principal duties were toward the front end of the train. The swing brakeman was toward the back end, and the flagman protected the back end and coupled and switched as needed. The conductor had control of the train. The engineer obeyed his directions and observed signals.
The train was on a trip north toward Birmingham from Bessemer on the east main of a double track, and passed Phoenixville, a station near a cement plant which was north of it and west of the railroad tracks of appellant. The west main was used for the southbound travel which we will call the south main, and the east for north travel, which we will call the north main. The train had switching to do at the plant. To get into the plant from the east or north main line, the train had to travel north from Phoenixville to and over a crossover track from the north to the south main, and down it to a lead track from it to the plant yard. That plant was also served by the Atlanta, Birmingham and Coast Railroad Company whose line was west of the plant and whose engine and crew were at that time switching in its yard, so that appellant's engine and crew had to wait until the service was finished. That was at night. Appellant could not get this entire train of twenty- three cars on it. So that in waiting to get into the cement yard, the train had to wait on the southbound track or the northbound track, as was most convenient. The conductor directed the procedure. He caused the train to pass along the cross-over track to the southbound track and back down that track. That made it the duty of Davis, the decedent, to go forward toward Birmingham, and protect the front from southbound travel. This he did. After waiting three-quarters or an hour a special southbound freight came down. It had been flagged by decedent and he rode down on the engine. The conductor then arranged to move his train to the north track, out of the way. But before doing so discovered a train coming from the south, going north on that track. So he waited for the train to pass. Then decedent lined up the switch on the northbound track for the cross-over, and Atkinson, the swing brakeman, lined it up on the southbound track for the cross-over. The train then made the movement over to the northbound track and passed the switch with its caboose. Then decedent lined up the cross-over switch with the northbound main and crossed that main behind the caboose, and at the same time Atkinson lined it up for the southbound main, and crossed over also and went down the side path nine or ten car lengths (forty feet each) to where the conductor Cagle was standing. The southbound freight was then moving slowly in its course. Atkinson then asked Cagle what he planned to do. He told Atkinson that he would back down on the northbound track and wait. Another train would be due down the southbound track in about an hour. All the trainmen had a time-table showing that schedule. Atkinson then gave with his lantern a little back up signal to decedent and hallooed to him. This was done two or three times. This signal was intended for Davis, whose lantern showed from the side of the northbound track at the switch which was his post of duty.
Davis would ordinarily relay it to the engineer. It is not clear exactly where he was standing. As to that, Cagle testified as follows: And Atkinson testified as follows: There was no other evidence of his exact position.
After Atkinson gave this little back up signal two or three times, the engineer gave three short blasts of his whistle. This was his back up signal. It was heard and understood by Atkinson and Cagle about thirty-three car lengths away, and by Barnes, the flagman, about forty-five to fifty car lengths away; whereas Davis was only about twenty-three car lengths away. Atkinson hearing it turned his back and walked away from the direction of Davis toward Cagle. Davis did not acknowledge the signal. The train soon began to back and soon afterwards Davis began to halloo, and Atkinson gave the "wash out" signal, for an immediate stop. He gave it also to the south-bound train and stopped it. They went to Davis and found him sitting on the edge of the cross-ties with both legs cut off. The caboose and two coal cars had passed. He was sent in ambulance to the hospital and died that night.
Appellee claims that Davis was not expecting his train to be backed and parked on the north main, and had heard the conversation at Phoenixville that his conductor intended to park it on the south main, but this was always in the discretion of the conductor, dependent upon the respective advantages of each under the particular circumstances.
Atkinson testified that the three short blasts of the whistle was the engineer's back up signal, and the only one he had. That those blasts meant that. That he only heard one such signal from the engineer.
Cagle testified that he did not notice what was the first signal the engineer gave, but that he gave two signals. That the second time he blew a back up signal--three shorts. Also that a call by the engineer for a signal is four shorts. This witness heard two signals, but did not know how many blasts he gave in the first; then he gave three shorts. The witness then testified:
We here refer to certain established principles of law in connection with this sort of case not in any respect disputed by counsel. This is done only to illustrate the meaning of the issue and what really is controverted.
The gist of this action is negligence of some sort by the railroad company or some employee of it in the scope of his duty, which proximately caused the death of Davis. There is no presumption of negligence. The evidence to sustain the claim must be of a substantial sort, more than a scintilla and it cannot be predicated on a conjecture, or a supposition that there might have been negligence which proximately caused it. But the inference of negligence must be from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... 27 REYNOLDS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. 6 Div. 643.Supreme Court of AlabamaJune 24, 1948 ... R. Co. v. Cary, supra; Alabama Great Southern ... [36 So.2d 105] ... R. Co. v. Davis, 246 Ala. 64, 18 So.2d 737 ... It is ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Glass
...on conjecture or a supposition that there might have been negligence which proximately caused the injuries. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Davis, 246 Ala. 64, 18 So.2d 737. See Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 251 Ala. 27, 36 So.2d 102. It is argued that there is no evidence suffic......
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Green, 6 Div. 872
...and that such negligence was the proximate cause, in whole or in part, of the injury plaintiff cannot recover. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Davis, 246 Ala. 64, 18 So.2d 737; Atlanta, B. & C. R. Co. v. Cary, 250 Ala. 675, 35 So.2d 559; Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. supra. The ca......
-
Atlanta, B. & C.R. Co. v. Cary
...following the engine, evidently knew or should have known about where plaintiff was at the time and what he was doing. Ala. Great So. Ry. Co. v. Davis, supra. argument that Cary should have first ascertained the engine was coupled to the cars and anticipated the air flow overlooks the theor......