Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Calvert
Decision Date | 14 June 1910 |
Citation | 170 Ala. 565,54 So. 184 |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. CALVERT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1911.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Blount County; John W. Inzer, Judge.
Action by Alba Anna Calvert against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Count 2 is as follows:
Plea 3 is as follows: "For further plea, in answer to complaint, defendant says that plaintiff herself was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to her own injury in this: That plaintiff, when at or near said crossing, saw said train approaching, and measured the time and distance it would take to cross said track, and, acting thereon negligently attempted to cross in front of said train, and was injured."
The oral charge of the court, referred to, is as follows "Willful, wanton, or intentional negligence is where one consciously fails, that is charged with a duty, to exercise due care and diligence to prevent possible injury to the person of another, on the discovery of the peril of another, or under such circumstances where he is chargeable with knowledge of such peril, and being conscious of the inevitable and probable results of such failure, and that injury will probably result to such other persons thereby."
The following charge was given for the plaintiff:
There was judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $7,500.
Ward & Weaver, for appellant.
Gaston & Pettus, for appellee.
This action is by the appellee for damages resulting from personal injury received by plaintiff's being struck by an engine of defendant's at a public road crossing.
The second count of the complaint was not subject to the cause of demurrer, "that it does not allege facts showing plaintiff's place at or upon said track to be dangerous." As will be seen by the count set out in the statement by the reporter, it alleges that plaintiff was lawfully crossing said railroad at a public road crossing "and was in a place of danger upon or near said track." "This averment shows that defendant was under a duty to keep a lookout for her at the time and place of the collision, and to exercise care in conservation of her safety,"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Harrison
... ... v. Carpenter, ... 194 Ala. 141, 69 So. 626; L. & N.R.R. Co. v ... Calvert, 170 Ala. 565, 54 So. 184; Birmingham R.R ... Co. v. Baker, 132 Ala. 515, 31 So. 618; North ... observation of the Chief Justice in Louisville & ... Nashville Railroad Co. v. Calvert, Adm'r, 172 Ala ... 597, 602, 55 So. 812, 814, that the ... ...
-
Feore v. Trammel
... ... 49 So. 916; Merrill v. Sheffield Co., 169 Ala. 242, ... 53 So. 219; L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Calvert, 170 Ala ... 565, 54 So. 184; B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Drennen, 175 ... Ala. 338, 57 So. 876, ... ...
-
Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes
... ... 266, 20 ... So. 132; West v. Thomas, 97 Ala. 622, 11 So. 768; ... L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Calvert, 170 Ala. 565, 54 So ... 184; B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 ... So. 584; Illinois ... ...
-
Wunderlich v. Franklin
...v. Sayre Min. & Mfg. Co., 161 Ala. 441, 49 So. 916; Merrill v. Sheffield Co., 169 Ala. 242, 53 So. 219; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Calvert, 170 Ala. 565, 54 So. 184; Birmingham R., L. & P. Co. v. Drennen, 175 Ala. 338, 57 So. 876, Ann.Cas.1914C, 1037; Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala. 97, 59 So. ......