Haywood v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 966 |
| Citation | 203 Ala. 550,84 So. 259 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAYWOOD v. ALABAMA FUEL & IRON CO. |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 24, 1919
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; J.E. Blackwood, Judge.
Action by Addie Haywood, as administratrix, against the Alabama Fuel & Iron Company, for damages for the wrongful death of her intestate. There was judgment for plaintiff, which was set aside on motion of the defendant, and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
The plaintiff's intestate was killed by a gas explosion while engaged in the mining of coal for the defendant corporation in its coal mine. The complaint was in three counts charging, respectively, a failure by defendant to provide a reasonably safe place for the intestate to work in; a failure to comply with the provision of General Acts 1911, p. 516, §§ 40, 42. Besides the general issue defendant pleaded the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. There was jury and verdict for plaintiff for $5,000. In his argument to the jury the counsel for the plaintiff made the following statement:
"I say that if you put a fine on the defendant of $50,000 that it won't stop right here with our friends and fellow citizens and Mr. Deloney; it won't stop with him, but it will go up higher, it will go up to the folks that get the dividends each year, and these dividends will be touched in such a manner as to attract their attention to the fact that they have been touched, and they will inquire into this and the folks that have really got control of this thing will say, 'Here, what is the matter down yonder?' and inquire into it and find out that this coal mine was operated in a manner to produce a condition of affairs which resulted in the wrongful death of the man, and that is the only place that it will be--"
Objection to this argument and motion to exclude being overruled plaintiff's counsel continued, "When they get around the table in Washington to divide the dividends--" This statement was also objected to, and the objection was overruled. The trial court also overruled defendant's objection to several other statements made by plaintiff's counsel in argument to the jury, which need not here be set out. The court granted the motion for new trial on the ground that error had been committed in overruling defendant's several objections to the argument of plaintiff's counsel.
W.A Denson, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Percy Benners & Burr, of...
To continue reading
Request your trial