Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 07 February 1900 |
| Citation | 124 Ala. 525,27 So. 408 |
| Parties | ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. BOYD. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Bibb county; S.D. Logan, Special Judge.
Action by James J. Boyd against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company for killing a cow. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Reversed.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and that the cow was killed as the result of an unavoidable accident. The plaintiff, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he had a cow killed on the railroad track running from Blocton to Woodstock, at a point 500 or 600 yards from Blocton; that at said point the track was straight for 300 yards in each direction; that he did not see the cow killed, but she was dead when he found her. One P. D. Hall, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he was on the train on the Alabama Great Southern Railroad, going from Woodstock to Blocton when, within three-quarters of a mile from Blocton, the train killed a cow; that at the time the cow was killed the train was running at the rate of 15 or 20 miles an hour; that the place where the cow was killed was nearly a mile from any public crossing on the railroad, was three-quarters of a mile from any station or stopping place on said railroad, was not in any village or town, and was not near any railroad crossing. The plaintiff also testified to substantially the same facts in reference to the place where the cow was killed. This being all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you believe the evidence in this case, you must find a verdict for the defendant." (2) "The question for the jury to decide in this case is not alone whether or not plaintiff's cow was killed by the defendant's company, but, before you can find for the plaintiff, you must be reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the killing was caused by the negligence of the defendant, and the burden of proving such negligence rests in this case upon the plaintiff, and negligence is not presumed against the defendant from mere proof of the killing." There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to give the charges requested by it.
Smith & Weatherly and W. W. Lavender, for appellant.
J. M. McMaster and T. S. Dark, for appellee.
The rule governing the burden of proof as to negligence in trials involving injury to stock by the locomotives or cars of a railroad in this state has been regulated by statute. The different enactments on the subject are particularly mentioned in the opinion rendered in Railway Co. v Hughes, 87 Ala. 611, 6 So. 413, and again in the opinion in Railroad Co. v. Harris, 98 Ala. 326, 13 So. 377. Under the statutes as they existed prior to the Code of 1886 the onus placed by them upon the railroad to acquit itself of negligence in such cases applied without regard to the place where the injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... 644 PERRY et al. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. 4 Div. 129.Alabama Court of AppealsNov. 22, 1949 [42 So.2d 838] ... [34 ... McMillan v ... Aiken et al., 205 Ala. 35, 88 So. 135; Southern R ... Co. v. Randall, 212 Ala. 41, 101 So. 661; Osborn v ... Grizzard, ... R. Co. v ... Daniel, 122 Ala. 362, 25 So. 197; Alabama Greataniel, 122 Ala. 362, 25 So. 197; Alabama Great S ... R. Co. v. Boyd ... ...
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith
...in order to place the burden on the defendant, the plaintiff must prove that the injury occurred at or near a crossing, etc. A. G. S. R. v. Boyd, 124 Ala. 525, 27 So. 408. Section 5476 of the Code of 1907 is a copy of section 3443 the Code of 1896, except that the words "at any one of the s......
-
Ex parte Southern Ry. Co.
...which had been repealed by the act of 1887, and which was the condition of the statute when construed in the case of A.G.S.R.R. Co. v. Boyd, 124 Ala. 526, 27 So. 408. The codifier of the Code of 1907, made section 5476 to the act of 1887, and which was construed in the case of Birmingham Mi......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co.
... ... v ... Holborn, 84 Ala. 133, 138, 4 So. 146; A. G. S. R. R ... v. Boyd, 124 Ala. 525, 528, 27 So. 408. It is manifest, ... then, that the burden ... ...