Cobb v. Lowe Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 456. |
| Parties | COBB v. LOWE MFG. CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Paul Speake, Judge.
Action under the Homicide Act by Loney M. Cobb against the Lowe Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Griffin & Ford, of Huntsville, for appellant.
Cooper & Cooper, of Huntsville, for appellee.
The action is under the homicide statute (Code 1923, § 5696), the father suing for damages because of the death of his minor son. The trial court gave the affirmative charge for defendant.
Defendant Lowe Manufacturing Company, maintained a drainage ditch for surface waters through its properties. It appears to have been a natural drain for this and other properties, enlarged and kept open by said company to better effect such purpose.
This drain crossed Ninth avenue, a public street or roadway in the Mill village, some 70 feet wide, including sidewalk and driveway.
Defendant company installed and maintained a culvert at this point passing under the street and sidewalk. The culvert consisted of a circular or tubular corrugated pipe, 3 feet in diameter the ditch at that point being 11 feet wide, and the surface of the sidewalk about 1 foot above the top of the culvert at the intake. A hand rail 2 1/2 to 3 feet above the sidewalk level was maintained by defendant along the sidewalk, extending the width of the ditch and beyond.
Charles Cobb, plaintiff's minor son, nearing his seventh birthday, was passing along this sidewalk with a schoolmate, near the same age, on their way home from school.
The water in the ditch, swollen by rains, was over the culvert at the intake. Charles passed under the handrail, was reaching down playing with leaves or chips in the water, and fell in, was drawn by the current into the culvert and drowned.
The water's edge and head of the intake, we observe, was not in the street, but was some inches over the property line and on defendant's property.
Some evidence tended to show defendant company maintained, or had maintained a children's playground on its property adjoining this ditch and running down to this culvert.
This evidence can avail nothing as tending to show Charles an invitee at the time. Without dispute he was going home from school along the sidewalk. The evidence indeed negatives his ever having used the playground. The playground, and the relation of invitees growing out of same, had no causal connection whatever with his death.
Cases dealing with invitees are not in point. Appellant's counsel invoke the doctrine of the turntable cases.
Waters whether pools or lakes, natural streams, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Massey v. Wright
...on the owner of property to erect barriers, or other safeguards to protect children, not invitees, from water hazards. Cobb v. Lowe Mfg. Co., 227 Ala. 456, 150 So. 687.' Bailey, at 292 Ala. 439, 296 So.2d 149. Glover v. City of Mobile, 417 So.2d at 178-179. In addition, there are other reas......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Green
...the attractive nuisance doctrine. As stated in Luallen v. Woodstock Iron and Coal Corp., 236 Ala. 621, 184 So. 182: 'In Cobb v. Lowe Mfg. Co., 227 Ala. 456, 150 So. 687, after freely admitting that pools have a lure for children, the Court added [page 688]: 'But this court, in line with rea......
-
Moseley v. Alabama Power Co.
... ... 'attractive nuisance' cases. The abovenoted ... authorities, in connection with Cobb v. Lowe Mfg ... Co., 227 Ala. 456, 150 So. 687; Littleton v. Alabama ... Power Co., 243 Ala ... ...
-
Locke v. Liquid Air Corp.
...276 Ala. 120, 159 So.2d 823 (1964); Luallen v. Woodstock Iron & Steel Corp., 236 Ala. 621, 184 So. 182 (1938); Cobb v. Lowe Manufacturing Co., 227 Ala. 456, 150 So. 687 (1933); Cox v. Alabama Water Co., 216 Ala. 35, 112 So. 352 (1927). Water hazardous due to a concealed or submerged conditi......