Drew v. Western Steel Car & Foundry Co.
Decision Date | 29 November 1911 |
Citation | 174 Ala. 616,56 So. 995 |
Parties | DREW v. WESTERN STEEL CAR & FOUNDRY CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.
Action by Arthur Drew against the Western Steel Car & Foundry Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Niel P Sterne and Tate & Walker, for appellant.
Willett & Willett, for appellee.
Plaintiff sued to recover for personal injuries, and the case was submitted on the following agreed statement of facts, which was all the evidence:
The complaint formulates the charges of negligence on the part of the defendant, through its superintendent in charge of the work, in the following terms:
The record is silent as to what pleas were interposed by the defendant, and we presume the submission was on a plea of the general issue. The trial court gave to the jury the general affirmative charge for the defendant, and there was judgment accordingly. Thus the only question here is whether the evidence offered, there being no dispute as to the facts, was of such a character as to prima facie show negligence on the part of the defendant employer, or to permit any rational inference favorable to that view.
The general rule, often affirmed by this and other courts, is thus stated: "If the facts are disputed, or, if not disputed, the existence of negligence is an inference, which as mere matter of discretion and judgment, may or may not be drawn from them, the question must be submitted to the jury." A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Jones, 71 Ala. 487. And, again: "In cases of doubt, where the facts are disputed, or where different minds may reasonably draw different conclusions from the same undisputed facts, the question of negligence vel non is a question of fact for the determination of the jury; but, when the facts are undisputed, and the inference to be drawn from them is clear and certain, it is a question of law for the decision of the court." L. &...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Clay
... ... (Wis., 1910), 128 N.W. 877; Jefferson v ... Republic Iron & Steel Co., 93 So. 890; Wright v ... Elkhorn Consolidation Coal & Coke ... Westinghouse ... Electric & Mfg. Co. (Pa., 1900), 47 A. 237; Drew v ... Western Steel Car & Foundry Co. (Ala., 1911), 56 So ... 995, 40 ... ...
-
Jones Food Co., Inc. v. Shipman
...in a negligence action to have a jury pass upon the question of liability becomes absolute. Drew v. Western Steel Car & Mfg.[Foundry] Co., 17[4] Ala. 616, 56 So. 995, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 890 [(1911)].' "Patterson v. Seibenhener, 273 Ala. 204, 206-207, 137 So.2d 758, 760 (1962). When a trial co......
-
Coosa Portland Cement Co. v. Crankfield
... ... Frederick v. Coosa Pipe & F. Co., 6 Ala.App. 310, 59 ... So. 702; Drew v. Western Steel Car & Mfg. Co., 174 ... Ala. 616, 621, 56 So. 995, 40 ... ...
-
Wilson v. Gulf States Steel Co.
... ... sufficient. Smith v. Watkins & Donaldson, 172 Ala ... 502, 55 So. 611; Drew v. Western Steel Car & Mfg ... Co., 174 Ala. 620, 56 So. 995, 40 L.R.A.(N.S.) 890; ... ffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Triplett, 177 ... Ala. 258, 58 So. 108; Coosa Pipe Foundry Co. v ... Poindexter, 182 Ala. 661, 62 So. 104; Gray Eagle Co ... v. Lewis, 161 Ala. 417, 49 ... ...