Kansas City, M. & B.R. Co. v. Flippo
Citation | 138 Ala. 487,35 So. 457 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Decision Date | 25 November 1903 |
Parties | KANSAS CITY, M. & B. R. CO. v. FLIPPO. |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; Peyton Norvell Judge.
Action by George Flippo against the Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad Company for injury received by plaintiff while in defendant's employ as a brakeman. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
The complaint contained six counts. The prefatory averments of each of the counts of the complaint were substantially the same, and averred the fact that the defendant was a common carrier, and engaged in such business at the time of the accident, and that the plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant as a brakeman. The averments of negligence in each of the counts were as follows:
The defendant demurred to the complaint as a whole upon the following grounds: (1) Each count of said complaint fails to show any fact of negligence or circumstance which would render the defendant liable. (2) Each count fails to aver or allege any facts of negligence or wrong committed by defendant which proximately contributed to the injury complained of. (3) There is no sufficient allegation of negligence which caused the injury complained of. (4) Each of said counts fails to aver any facts from which can be inferred any defect existing in the box car and engine at the time plaintiff is alleged to have made the said coupling. (5) Each count shows on its face that the alleged danger in attempting to couple the said car and engine was a risk incident to the plaintiff's employment, from which, in resulting in injury, no action arises.
To the first and second counts of the complaint the defendant demurred upon the following grounds: (1) Each of said counts 1 and 2 fails to show how or why it was the duty of the defendant to use cars coupling automatically by impact. To the third and fourth counts of the complaint the defendant demurred upon the following grounds: (1) Each of said counts fails to aver why or in what respect the said grab-irons or handholds were insufficient, or how the same contributed to the injury complained of. (3) Each of said counts 3 and 4 fails to aver how or in what respect the grab-irons or handholds or drawbars contributed to the injury complained of. (2) It is not shown how or in what respect it was the duty of defendant to have grab-irons or handholds of a standard height. (4) Each of said counts fails to aver that the grab-irons or handholds or drawbars attached to the said car were out of order, or unsafe, or unfit to be used by the company in its business. To the fifth count of the complaint the defendant demurred upon the following ground: The same fails to aver the name of the person in the service or employment of defendant to whom was intrusted the duty of seeing that the ways, works, machinery, or plants of the defendant were in proper condition, or that his name could not have been ascertained by reasonable diligence. To the sixth count of the complaint the defendant demurred upon the following grounds: (1) It is not shown that William Dice had authority to direct plaintiff to make the coupling. (2) The alleged defect was open and obvious to the plaintiff, and in attempting to make the coupling of the engine and the car he assumed the risk occasioned by the alleged defect in the drawhead and coupling appliances.
The defendant pleaded the general issue and several special pleas. Among the special pleas filed by the defendant were the following:
To the third and fourth pleas the plaintiff demurred upon the following grounds: (1) The said pleas are interposed to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co.
......R. R. Co. v. Voelker, 129 F. 522, 65 C. C. A. 226; Kansas City. &c. R. R. Co. v. Flippo, 138 Ala. 498, 35 So. 457;. Chicago &c. ......
-
City of Birmingham v. Graves
......v. Orr, supra; Smith v. Woolf, 160. Ala. 644, 49 So. 395; K.C., M. & B.R.R. Co. v. Flippo, 138 Ala. 487, 35 So. 457; Yick Wo v. Hopkins,. supra. . . The. ordinance in ......
-
Mcbride v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
...Alabama: Railroad Co. v. Brewing Co., 150 Ala. 390,. 43 So. 723; Armstrong v. Sellers, 182 Ala. 582, 62 So. 28; Railroad Co. v. Flippo, 138 Ala. 487, 35 So. 457. Arkansas: Railroad Co. v. Conger, 84 Ark. 421, 105 S. W. 1177. Colorado: Mead v. Brew. Co., 43 Colo. 1, 95 P. 284; Carlock v. Rai......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. York
...of fact. 56 Ark. 170; 55 Ark. 609. The question is narrowed to one of contributory negligence. 86 Ark. 244; 82 Ark. 11; 205 U.S. 1; 138 Ala. 487. question of negligence does not arise in the act of an employee going between the cars. 205 U.S. 1. Congress, by the act in question, intended to......