Boland v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1895 |
| Citation | 106 Ala. 641,18 So. 99 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOLAND v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. |
Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James J. Banks, Judge.
Action by W. H. Boland against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This action was brought by the appellant, W. H. Boland, against the appellee corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant as a brakeman. The complaint alleges, in substance, that plaintiff was an inexperienced brakeman on a construction train on one of the defendant's roads, and that, while in the discharge of his duties as such brakeman and performing his service, in obedience to the orders of the conductor on said train, he was permanently injured, having his arm so badly crushed and mangled as to necessitate its amputation, which injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant, in that plaintiff, being inexperienced, and defendant, knowing of his inexperience, put him to perform extrahazardous work without specially instructing him namely, to couple cars with "double buffers" or deadwoods, known as "Pan Handle" cars, said cars being different in coupling apparatus and more dangerous to couple than the ordinary cars, with which plaintiff was acquainted and accustomed to couple. The amended complaint alleged that the injury was caused by reason of the engineer or other person in charge of the locomotive, at the time the plaintiff was coupling the cars, negligently driving the said engine back with an unusually hard jerk, and with unusual and unnecessary force, against the stationary car which plaintiff was attempting to couple to the other cars attached to the moving train. As is stated in the opinion, the principal facts of this case, on the present appeal, are not materially different from the facts disclosed on the former appeal, and as found reported in 96 Ala. 625, 11 So. 667. After the introduction of all the evidence, the court, at the request of the defendant in writing, gave to the jury the general affirmative charge in its behalf. The plaintiff duly excepted to the giving of this charge, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the charges requested by him. There was judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.
L. C Dickey, J. F. Gillespy, and W. R. Houghton, for appellant.
Hewitt Walker & Porter and Thos. G. Jones, for appellee.
A witness generally must depose to facts within his knowledge and cannot be permitted to testify upon mere conjecture or belief, however strong; nor are his inferences or conclusions admissible evidence. Whether an inexperienced man, who had...
To continue reading
Request your trial