Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 29 May 1888 |
| Citation | 4 So. 289,84 Ala. 138 |
| Parties | GEORGIA PAC. RY. CO. v. BROOKS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Birmingham; H. A. SHARPE, Judge.
This was an action brought by Brooks against the Georgia Pacific Railway Company for damages on account of a personal injury received while in the employ of appellee. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
James Weatherly, for appellant.
Hewitt, Walker & Porter, for appellee.
The action is brought by appellee to recover damages for an injury suffered while a workman in the service of the appellant. Plaintiff's counsel admit that the suit is instituted, and the complaint framed, under the first subdivision of section 1 of the act of February 12, 1885 entitled "An act to define the liabilities of employers of workmen for injuries received by the workman while in the service of the employer," which, with some verbal changes, constitute section 2590 of Code 1886. In order to maintain the action, the plaintiff must bring himself within the purview of the act. By the first subdivision of the section, the master or employer is made liable to answer in damages to a servant or employe as if he were a stranger, and not engaged in such service or employment, "when the injury is caused by any defect in the condition of the ways works, machinery, or plant connected with or used in the business of the master or employer." It is further provided, in a subsequent part of the section, that the master or employer is not liable under this subdivision, unless the defect therein mentioned arose from, or had not been discovered or remedied owing to, the negligence of the master or employer, or of some person in the employment of the master or employer, and intrusted by him with the duty of seeing that the ways, works, machinery, or plant were in proper condition. There is no pretense that the defect complained of was in either the ways, works, or plant. The point of contention is, what is meant by "machinery," as employed in the act? In construing words used in a statute, reference should be made to the subject of legislation; and if they have acquired a defined, popular signification when referable to such subject, the presumption is that they were used in such sense by the legislature. A machine is a piece of mechanism which, whether simple or compound, acts by a combination of mechanical parts, which serve to create or apply power to produce motion, or to increase or regulate the effect. As used in the patent act,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Burton
...hammer, riveting hammer, hand hammer, sledge hammer, snap hammer, bolt hammer, etc., have been classed as simple tools: Georgia R. R. v. Brooks, 84 Ala. 138; 4 Sou. 289; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Zeitz (Col.), 170 Pac. 181; Baker v. Western & Atlantic R. Co., 68 Ga. 699; Buasco v. Wells Bro......
-
Koschman v. Ash
...Garragan v. Iron Works, 158 Mass. 596, 33 N. E. 652;Martin v. Highland Co., 128 N. C. 264, 38 S. E. 876,83 Am. St. Rep. 671;Railway Co. v. Brooks, 84 Ala. 138,4 South. 289;Georgia Ry. Co. v. Nelms, 83 Ga. 70, 9 S. E. 1049,20 Am. St. Rep. 308;Power Co. v. Murphy, 115 Ind. 566, 18 N. E. 30; L......
-
Koschman v. Ash
...coal); Garragan v. Fall River, 158 Mass. 596, 33 N.E. 652; Martin v. Highland, 128 N.C. 264, 38 S.E. 876, 83 Am. St. 671; Georgia v. Brooks, 84 Ala. 138, 4 So. 289; Georgia v. Nelms, 83 Ga. 70, 9 S.E. 1049, 20 Am. 308; Jenney v. Murphy, 115 Ind. 566, 18 N.E. 30; Labatt, M. & S., § 154. In S......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Moore
... ... injury should have been sustained. Railway Co. v ... Brooks, 84 Ala. 138, 4 So. 289; Clements v. Railroad ... Co. (Ala.) 28 So. 643 ... Other ... ...