Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brackin, 4 Div. 419.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtBROWN, Justice.
Citation248 Ala. 459,28 So.2d 193
PartiesATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. BRACKIN.
Decision Date14 November 1946
Docket Number4 Div. 419.

28 So.2d 193

248 Ala. 459

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
v.
BRACKIN.

4 Div. 419.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 14, 1946


Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1946.

[248 Ala. 460] [28 So.2d 194]

Evans Hinson, of Montgomery, and Alto V. Lee, III, of Dothan, for appellant.

[248 Ala. 461] J. Hubert Farmer, J. N. Mullins and J. N. Mullins, Jr., all of Dothan, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

This is an action under the homicide act by the appellee as administratrix of the estate of S. M. Brackin, deceased, against appellant Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for wrongfully causing Brackin's death. The case was submitted to the jury on counts 1 and 2 of the complaint and defendant's plea of 'not guilty'. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff and the defendant has appealed. Said counts aver that 'the defendant by and through its agents, servants or employees who were acting within the scope of their employment, * * * did, wantonly and recklessly propel its passenger train * * *' against the automobile of plaintiff's intestate at a public crossing within the corporate limits of Dothan, thereby proximately causing his death.

Appellant's first contention is that said counts are in trespass imposing on the plaintiff the burden of proving that the defendant corporation actually participated in the damnifying acts causing the death of plaintiff's intestate. This contention cannot be sustained. Said courts are in trespass on the case and in legal effect charge an unintentional application of force proximately causing said death. A willful or intentional act is not involved in wantonness, which may consist of an inadvertent failure to act by a person with knowledge that someone is probably in peril and the act or failure to act is in reckless disregard of the consequences. The actions of trespass and trespass on case are clearly differentiated in Crotwell v. Cowan, 240 Ala. 119, 198 So. 126, and in City Delivery Co. v. Henry, 139 Ala. 161, 34 So. 389.

DeBerry v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Alabama, 237 Ala. 223, 186 So. 547, was an action for assault and bettery alleged to have been committed by one Goodall, the tire-room foreman, who had subforemen under him and who had charge of three shifts. The court held that to render the corporation liable for the act or omission to act of Goodall, the burden was on the plaintiff to show that Goodall was the alter ego or vice principal of the corporation and that he acted within the scope of his agency or employment.

W. E. Belcher Lumber Co. v. York, 245 Ala. 286, 17 So.2d 281, was an action of trespass to land. Said two last cases are inept as authorities on the question herein presented.

Appellant's next contention is that the 'plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the defendant wantonly and recklessly propelled its passenger train over said Cherry Street crossing at a dangerous and high speed of about forty of fifty miles per hour.' The evidence in the case shows that this was a public crossing that was used with great frequency by the general public and that the engineer was familiar with this crossing. 'However, it was never proven and there was no testimony to the effect that this engineer knew that this crossing was used by numbers of people at about the time of day when the collision occurred.' The evidence shows that the engineer had been operating trains over this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Johns, 3 Div. 696
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 6, 1958
    ...1032; Reed v. Ridout's Ambulance, Inc., 212 Ala. 428, 102 So. 906. If there by any statements in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 28 So.2d 193, decided in 1946, in conflict with the [267 Ala. 275] holdings in the Hayes and Reed cases, supra, such statements are Page 278 ......
  • Browning v. Shackelford, No. 44255
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 13, 1967
    ...willfulness and wantonness as has been pointed out by the Alabama Supreme Court, citing Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 28 So.2d 193 (1946), and Graves v. Wildsmith, 278 Ala. 228, 177 So.2d 448 (1965). In the latter case we find these Wantonness has been defined a......
  • Smith v. Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y., No. 21314
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 25, 1960
    ...entertained a Page 316 specific design or intention to injure the plaintiff * * *.' 'Further in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 461, 28 So.2d 193, 194, we "A willful or intentional act is not involved in wantonness, which may consist of an inadvertent failure to act by ......
  • Pridgen v. Head, 4 Div. 247
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 15, 1968
    ...is probably imperiled and the act or failure to act is in reckless disregard of the consequences. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. vs. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 28 So.2d The Dickey opinion further states from Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (v. Corbitt), 118 So. 775 (755): "While as to liability and the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Johns, 3 Div. 696
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 6, 1958
    ...1032; Reed v. Ridout's Ambulance, Inc., 212 Ala. 428, 102 So. 906. If there by any statements in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 28 So.2d 193, decided in 1946, in conflict with the [267 Ala. 275] holdings in the Hayes and Reed cases, supra, such statements are Page 278 ......
  • Browning v. Shackelford, No. 44255
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 13, 1967
    ...willfulness and wantonness as has been pointed out by the Alabama Supreme Court, citing Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 28 So.2d 193 (1946), and Graves v. Wildsmith, 278 Ala. 228, 177 So.2d 448 (1965). In the latter case we find these Wantonness has been defined a......
  • Smith v. Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y., No. 21314
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 25, 1960
    ...entertained a Page 316 specific design or intention to injure the plaintiff * * *.' 'Further in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 461, 28 So.2d 193, 194, we "A willful or intentional act is not involved in wantonness, which may consist of an inadvertent failure to act by ......
  • Pridgen v. Head, 4 Div. 247
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 15, 1968
    ...is probably imperiled and the act or failure to act is in reckless disregard of the consequences. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. vs. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 28 So.2d The Dickey opinion further states from Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (v. Corbitt), 118 So. 775 (755): "While as to liability and the ......
  • 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