Hines v. Paden
| Decision Date | 28 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 116 |
| Citation | 87 So. 88,204 Ala. 592 |
| Parties | HINES, Director General of Railroads, v. PADEN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwynn, Judge.
Action by W.C. Paden against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, operating the Alabama Great Southern Railroad. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Laws 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.
A.G. & S.P. Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.
McEniry & McEniry, of Bessemer, for appellee.
Appellee's automobile was struck by a freight train of the Alabama Great Southern Railroad at a public crossing in Tuscaloosa county and this suit was brought for the recovery of damages sustained thereby.
The cause was tried upon count 2 as amended, which relied for recovery upon the negligence of the servants or agents of the defendant in and about the management and operation of said train, and upon the plea of general issue as well as several special pleas of contributory negligence setting up the failure of the driver of the plaintiff's car to stop look, and listen before going upon the track. That the driver of the car did not observe this latter rule is without dispute, and counsel for defendant insist that the affirmative charge was due on this account. However, in order to preclude recovery, the failure to observe this rule must have proximately contributed to the injury. Walker D Hines, Director Gen., v. Champion, 85 So. 511.
The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that work was being done at this particular crossing for the purpose of double tracking the road; that one roadbed was close to the other raised about two feet or more; that in attempting to cross his car struck this bank which was rather steep, causing the car to go dead, and that he could not move the car therefrom before it was struck by the train; that he did not see the bank and there was nothing at the crossing to warn the traveler of its condition. The proof further tended to show there was ample time to cross the track before the train reached the crossing had the car not encountered this embankment. More of the evidence need not be referred to. Suffice it to say we are of the opinion the question as to whether or not the failure to stop, look, and listen was the proximate cause of the injury, was properly submitted to the jury, and it appears that the trial court very fully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy
... ... that of a due reply to appellant, no error intervened ... C.D. Hauger Co. v. Abramson, 215 Ala. 174, 110 So ... 152; Hines, Director General of Railroads, v. Paden, ... 204 Ala. 592, 87 So. 88; Central of Georgia Railway Co ... v. Ellison, 199 Ala. 571, 75 So. 159 ... ...
-
Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Yeldell
...a reply in kind in some aspects. The courts are very liberal in allowing argument when it comes under this characterization. Hines v. Paden, 204 Ala. 592, 87 So. 88; Elmore v. State, 21 Ala.App. 410, 109 So. 114; Gilliland v. R. G. Dunn & Co., 136 Ala. 327, 34 So. 25; Hanners v. State, 147 ......
-
York v. State
... ... had previously made in argument. Under these circumstances ... wide latitude should be afforded to the reply. Hines v ... Paden, 204 Ala. 592, 87 So. 88; Elmore v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 410, 109 So. 114; Hanners v ... State, 147 Ala. 27, 41 So. 973; Barney v ... ...
-
Shewbart v. State
...9 So. 722, 30 Am.St.Rep. 65; Hanners v. State, 147 Ala. 27, 41 So. 973; Gilliland v. Dunn & Co., 136 Ala. 327, 34 So. 25; Hines v. Paden, 204 Ala. 592, 87 So. 88; McQueen v. Jones, 226 Ala. 4, 145 So. 440; Roden v. State, 3 Ala.App. 193, 58 So. 74; Barney v. State, 5 Ala.App. 302, 57 So. 59......