Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Anchors
Decision Date | 01 May 1897 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. ANCHORS. [1] |
Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.
Action brought by Hannah Anchors, as administratrix of the estate of J. F. Anchors, deceased, against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, to recover damages for negligently causing the death of plaintiff's intestate. From an order of the lower court overruling its demurrers to plaintiff's complaint, defendant appeals. Reversed in part.
The complaint contained 10 counts. The first count of the complaint was as follows: The third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth counts of the complaint charge the defendant with simple negligence, while the second, sixth, and tenth counts sought to allege that the injury was willfully inflicted, or resulted from such wanton negligence as to be the equivalent of a willful wrong. The allegations of the second and tenth counts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The sixth count was as follows: "Plaintiff claims of the defendant the other and further sum of twenty-five thousand dollars as damages, for that heretofore, to wit, on the fourth day of July, 1896, defendant was running and moving a passenger car over a line of railroad that it was operating in and beyond the corporate limits of the city of Anniston, an incorporated town or city; that, while the said passenger car was moving within said corporate limits, it ran into and against a passenger car of the Oxford Lake Line; that plaintiff's intestate was the conductor on said last-named passenger car; that the ordinances of the city of Anniston prohibit any person from running or causing any railroad train, car, or engine [to run] at a faster speed than six miles an hour; that defendant's agents and servants Hiram Meigs and Robert Wallace, conductor and engineer on said defendant's train, were willfully or wantonly running defendant's said train at a greater rate of speed than six miles per hour, and, by reason of such speed, they willfully or wantonly ran into and against the car on which plaintiff's intestate was the conductor, knocked the said car off its track, and struck and killed plaintiff's intestate, plaintiff's intestate's death being caused by the said willfulness or wantonness in running said train of defendant's at such a high rate of speed, to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars." To the first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth counts of the complaint the defendant separately demurred, upon the grounds (1) that they stated no cause of action; (2) that it does not appear from said counts that the alleged negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff's intestate; (3) that it does not appear from the facts that the defendant was guilty of negligence. To the second, sixth, and tenth counts of the complaint the defendant demurred, upon the grounds (1) that they state no cause of action; (2) that no sufficient facts are stated to show that the plaintiff's intestate was injured by reason of the wanton, careless, or willful negligence of the defendant or its agents; (3) that the facts stated do not show that the defendant or its agents willfully or wantonly or negligently caused the defendant's locomotive to strike the deceased or cause the injuries. These demurrers were overruled by the court, and from the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Capstone Building Corp. (Ex parte Capstone Building Corp.)
...642, 22 So. 900 [ (1897) ];Birmingham R. & E. Co. v. Bowers, 110 Ala. 328, 20 So. 345 [ (1896) ]; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Anchors, Adm'r, 114 Ala. 492, 22 So. 279, 62 Am.St.Rep. 116 [ (1897) ].’ ” (emphasis added)). Consistent with the foregoing, we note that the legislature employs the te......
-
Ex Parte Capstone Bldg. Corp.
...642, 22 So. 900 [(1897)]; Birmingham R. & E. Co. v. Bowers, 110 Ala. 328, 20 So. 345 [(1896)]; Louisville & N.R.Co. v. Anchors, Adm'r, 114 Ala. 492, 22 So. 279, 62 Am.St.Rep. 116 [(1897)].'" (emphasis added)). Consistent with the foregoing, we note that the legislature employs the term "tre......
-
Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Moore
... ... Montgomery St. Ry. Co., 123 Ala. 233, 26 So. 349; L ... & N. R. R. Co. v. Anchors, 114 Ala. 492, 22 So. 279, 62 ... Am. St. Rep. 116; Western Ry. of Ala. v. Walker, 113 ... ...
-
Hoover's Dairy, Inc. v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc./Special Products, Inc.
...circumstances and existing conditions, that his conduct will naturally or probably result in injury. Louisville, etc., Railroad Co. v. Anchors, 114 Ala. 492, 22 So. 279, 61 Am.St.Rep. 116. Sharp v. Robberson, supra, at 397 (quoting Reel v. Consolidated Inv. Co., 236 S.W. 43 (Mo.1921)). This......