Carleton v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 April 1908
• Citation: 46 So. 495,155 Ala. 326
• Parties: CARLETON v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

46 So. 495

155 Ala. 326

CARLETON v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 23, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

Action by H. M. Carleton, as administrator, etc., against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The case made for plaintiff is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The defense set up by way of special pleas and the proof was that the railroad had a regulation, as required by the statute laws of the state of Alabama, as to where passengers of different classes should ride; that plaintiff was a white man, and was riding in a coach with colored passengers; that this was against the statute and rules of the company; that under the law and the regulations the conductor was forced to require him to move from one coach into the other; and that by being in the colored coach plaintiff's intestate proximately contributed to the injuries which resulted in his death. At the conclusion the court gave the general affirmative charge for the defendant.

James W. Strothers, for appellant.

George P. Harrison, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This was an action for damages for the wrongful killing of plaintiff's intestate. It is insisted, first, that the court erred in sustaining the demurrers to the first 10 counts of the complaint. After the sustaining of said demurrers, the plaintiff filed a number of other counts which substantially state the same cause of action as alleged in said 10 counts, and under which all of the evidence which would be relevant to said 10 original counts could be considered. Consequently, if there was error in sustaining the demurrers to these first 10 counts, it was error without injury.

The court gave the general affirmative charge in favor of the defendant. There was evidence which tended to show that the conductor, or the person who was acting as conductor, ordered the plaintiff's intestate to leave the car in which he was, and to go into another, while the train was in rapid motion at night; also that said official caught him by the shoulder, pushed him out of the door, and shut the door behind him; and that as said intestate went to step across the coupling he fell off. The carrier owes the duty to the passenger to provide a safe place for him to ride, to see that he is treated with respect by its servants, and not to expose him to unnecessary peril. While the law recognizes the right of the carrier to make and enforce reasonable regulations with regard to the cars to be occupied by different classes of passengers, yet, in requiring passengers to pass from one car to another, not only must it be done in a...