Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Brock

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtSIMPSON, J.
Citation161 Ala. 351,49 So. 453
Decision Date15 April 1909

49 So. 453

161 Ala. 351


Supreme Court of Alabama

April 15, 1909

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. O. Lane, Judge.

Action by S. M. Brock against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

The first count in the complaint is in the following language: "Plaintiff claims of the defendant, the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, a private corporation, the sum of $10,000 damages, in this: That on and prior to the 3d day of August, 1907, the defendant operated a railway between Bessemer and Birmingham, Ala. That on, to wit, the date aforesaid, plaintiff was in the employment of defendant, and while engaged in the discharge of his duties under his employment a locomotive engine or train on defendant's railroad track collided with a train on which he was, at or near West End, on the line of said railway, greatly bruising and injuring plaintiff's back and hips. [Here follows a list of his injuries and an allegation that he was permanently injured and disabled.] Plaintiff avers that his said injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the engineer, whose name is unknown to the plaintiff, who was also in the employment of defendant, and who had charge and control of the locomotive engine on the railroad track of defendant which collided with the car on which plaintiff was, in the negligent manner in which he ran or operated the same."

The oral charge of the court, excepted to, was in the following language: "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that it is not necessary in a case like this for the plaintiff to have been actually engaged in manual work for the defendant at the time of the injury, and if you find from the evidence that he was employed by the defendant, and that he had been engaged in the work of defendant on the wrecking car at Bessemer, and was returning from Bessemer to Birmingham, and while so returning from his work was riding in the car in order to get back to Birmingham, and was injured while so riding, I charge you that he would be, in contemplation of law, engaged at the time of the injury in the work of the defendant for which he was employed, and within the line and scope of his employment."

Defendant also requested the affirmative charge as to count 1, which was refused.

A. D. & E. D. Smith, for appellant.

Frank S. White & Sons, for appellee.


This action by the appellee is for damages on account of injuries claimed to have been received by the plaintiff as an employé of the defendant. All of the counts of the complaint were eliminated by demurrer, except the first; and the first assignment of error insisted on is to the action of the court in overruling demurrers to said count.

The gravamen of the demurrer insisted on in argument is that it does not sufficiently set out the facts showing in what consisted the negligence complained of. While it is true that, under our decisions, greater particularity is required in the allegations of contributory negligence by the defendant than is required of the plaintiff in alleging negligence, yet it has been established by the decisions of this court that complaints alleging negligence in the general terms used in this count are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Great Southern Lumber Co. v. Hamilton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 10 Noviembre 1924
    ......v. Castile, 214 P. 121; Stone-Webster Engineering Corp. v. Collins, 199 F. 581; Ala. Great Southern R. R. Co. v. Brock, 49 So. 453; Self v. Adel Lbr. Co., 64 S.E. 112, 5 Ga.App. 846. . . If it. was the purpose of counsel to advance the contention under. ......
  • Shelby Iron Co. v. Morrow
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 4 Enero 1923
    ...... Ala. 300, 307, 9 So. 252, 25 Am. St. Rep. 47; A. G. S. Ry. Co. v. Brock, 161 Ala. 351, 49 So. 453; Gray. Eagle Coal Co. v. Lewis, 161 Ala. 415, ...& N. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 162 Ala. 665, 50 So. 300; Alabama Power Co. v. Stogner [Ala. Sup.] 95 So. 151), is not available to. ......
  • Watts v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 14 Febrero 1924
    ...... T. Co. v. Louisell, 161 Ala. 231, 50 So. 87; A. G. S. Ry. Co. v. Brock, 161 Ala. 351, 49 So. 453; Smoot. v. M. & M. Ry. Co., 67 Ala. 17; Tabler, ......
  • Williams v. Schaff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 2 Junio 1920
    ...servant is resting or in necessary inactivity. Chambers v. Mfg. Co., 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 383; Light Co. v. Sawyer, 47 So. 67; Railroad Co. v. Brock, 49 So. 453; Co. v. Smith, 95 S.W. 800; Niece v. Creamery Co. 133 N.W. 878; Jacobson v. Mill Co., 119 N.W. 510; Chicago Rock Island & Pac. v. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT