Harrison v. Alabama Midland Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1906
• Citation: 40 So. 394,144 Ala. 246
• Parties: HARRISON v. ALABAMA MIDLAND RY. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

40 So. 394

144 Ala. 246

HARRISON v. ALABAMA MIDLAND RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 17, 1906

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1906.

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Gladden Harrison against the Alabama Midland Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

William L. Martin, for appellant.

J. M Chilton and A. A. Wiley, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

This action is for the recovery of damages for personal injuries. No objection was raised to the sixth count in the complaint. The defendant filed six pleas. The first was the general issue, and the third was withdrawn, leaving special pleas, 2 4, 5 and 6.

A motion was made to strike pleas 5 and 6, but the motion pleas and the rulings thereon cannot be considered, as they are not set out in the bill of exceptions. Cottingham v. Greely Barnham Grocery Co., 129 Ala. 200, 30 So. 560, 87 Am. St. Rep. 58.

Demurrers were interposed to pleas 3 and 4 as originally filed. Each plea was afterwards amended, and it does not appear that the demurrers were afterwards interposed to the pleas as amended, and they cannot, therefore, be reviewed. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Woods, 105 Ala. 561, 17 So. 41. However, the grounds of objection to the original pleas were obviated by the amendments. This leaves for consideration the demurrers to the fifth and sixth pleas.

Adopting what is correctly said of these pleas by appellee's counsel in their brief, as to the substantial contents of those pleas, it may be said: "The fifth plea sets up the existence of an association composed of the defendant company and other railway companies, under the designation of the Relief & Hospital Department of the Plant System." The plea sets up the purpose of this organization, and the manner in which the contributions made by the companies themselves and its employés are to be conserved and dispensed. Each employé contributes a stated sum per month. To this, the associated companies add $1,000.00 per month, which amounts to $12,000.00 per year, and in addition guaranties the payment of all the benefits that may accrue to employés under the terms of the contract. In case of injury not causing death, employés are entitled to medical and surgical treatment at the hospital, provided for and maintained, furnished medicines, etc., while under such treatment, and are, besides, to be entitled to a certain weekly indemnity. In case of death, the benefit consisted of a sum certain, to be paid to the family of deceased. The articles and purposes of the organization are fully set out in the plea. By the terms of the contract (of one becoming a member) the employé had the right, upon being injured, to determine whether he would accept the benefits arising from their joint contributions by the companies and the employés, or whether he would bring his suit to recover damages for any negligence which he might claim occasioned his injuries. In case of his death, his representatives had the same right of choice.

The plea alleges that the plaintiff, Gladden Harrison, after he was injured, and before bringing suit, accepted the benefits to which he was entitled by the terms of this contract, and sets up the fact of such acceptance as a final and conclusive bar to his right afterwards to maintain a suit for damages for his alleged injuries.

The sixth plea, in somewhat different language, sets up the same contract, but adds that it was one of its terms, that its construction and effect should be determined by the laws of Georgia. It then proceeds to show, that there was no statute law of Georgia applying to such contracts, but that a contract substantially the same in its provisions and made with the same department, was construed and its effect determined by the Supreme Court of the state of Georgia, which was the highest court of the state, in the case of Petty v. Brunswick, etc., R. R. Co. reported in 109 Ga. 666, 35 S.E. 82. The decision in that case is attached as an exhibit to the plea, and made a part of it.

The pleas were demurred to on numerous grounds, the main contention raised by demurrer being, that the contract between the plaintiff and the Relief & Hospital Department of the Plant System, and with the Alabama Midland Railway Company, as a constituent member of that association, is invalid, on the grounds that the establishment of such a department is ultra vires; that there was no consideration for entering into the contract, and that the acceptance of the benefits of the same by the plaintiff did not constitute a binding election which prevented him from afterwards bringing and maintaining a suit to recover damages for his alleged injuries.

The contract of the plaintiff provides, that the associated companies shall contribute annually the sum of $12,000.00 as a benefit fund of the association, supplemented by monthly contributions from the employés. This wears the appearance of stability on which an employé may rely for the guaranteed relief, in case he should choose to become a member of the association. By the scheme of relief the employé, or his representative in case of accident or death, is offered the choice to be voluntarily exercised by him, of accepting indemnity provided for him by the company and other employés, or refusing such indemnity, bring suit to recover damages for his injuries.

We have been pointed to nothing in the charters of either of the companies which would prevent them from establishing such a relief hospital. The primary object of a railroad company is to build, equip and operate its line for the transportation of freight and passengers. In doing so, a vast number of employés are employed, all of whom, while in service on the line, are subject to dangers in multiplied forms, and to physical injuries, for which the companies are subjected to liability, and the injured often to irreparable loss. Any device or improvement which prevents or is intended to prevent these evils, is incident to the due exercise of their powers, and clearly within the scope of their organization. A ground on which this right is assailed is, that the scheme is an insurance business; but this is a mistake. It does not purport to be an insurance company. The benefits are in the way of relief in cases of sickness, accident or death, and is a beneficial and not an insurance association, as has been expressly held. Donald v. C. B. Ry. Co., 93 Iowa, 295, 61 N.W. 971, 33 L. R. A. 492; Com. v. Equitable Association, 137 Pa. 412, 18 A. 1112; Association v. Jones, 154 Pa. 99, 26 A. 253.

The validity of the establishment of such relief associations by railroad companies, have been the subject of frequent adjudications in many of the states of the Union. The decision in the case referred to in the sixth plea ( Petty v. Brunswick, etc., Ry. Co., 109 Ga. 666, 35 S.E. 82), is a full, clear and able decision of all the main questions involved in this case, and which construes the validity of the same contract we have before us. The contract as the court says, "Did not, as claimed, in any of its terms or conditions stipulate that the defendant company should be absolved from the legal consequences of its own negligence or that of its...