Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Lynne
| Decision Date | 05 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 13 |
| Citation | 75 So. 14,199 Ala. 631 |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. et al. v. LYNNE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Morgan County; Thomas W. Wert Judge.
Action by W.E. Lynne against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under Act of April 18, 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.
Eyster & Eyster, of Albany, and Sample & Kilpatrick, of Cullman, for appellants.
Wert & Lynne, of Decatur, for appellee.
Appellee sued the four appellant corporations, as joint tort-feasors to recover damages done to his house or building situated near the railroad right of way of the different corporations. The damages were alleged to have been caused by blasting, in the use of powerful and high explosives on the right of way whereby stones and other débris were thrown upon and against the building, and concussions were produced, some of the effects of which were to crack the walls and chimneys of plaintiff's house, rendering the house uninhabitable and causing plaintiff to lose tenants, rents, etc. The plaintiff having recovered damages against all the defendants, they appeal, and separately assign errors.
It is first insisted that the court erred in overruling a demurrer to the complaint; the only contention being that the complaint showed no joint liability on the part of all the defendants. This insistence is not sustained. The complaint did allege a joint liability, and was therefore not open to this objection. If the objection had been good, then, to be availing, the demurrer would have had to be interposed by the defendants only, as against whom no liability was shown, and a severance taken in the assignment of errors.
Joint tort-feasors are liable jointly and severally, and must be sued in the same manner; and if sued jointly a recovery may be had against one or more, though plaintiff fail as to some. We therefore find no error in the record proper, which is availing on this appeal.
There was no error in allowing proof that rocks were thrown upon premises other than plaintiff's. There was no attempt to recover damages therefor; but such proof was admissible to show the character of the blastings and concussions, which were the same that injured plaintiff's building.
There was no error in allowing witnesses, in answer to questions as to the extent of the damages, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. L & W Const. Co.
...adjoining property and other buildings in the neighborhood as bearing on the character and extent of the explosion. Louisville & N. Rd. Co. v. Lynne, 199 Ala. 631, 75 So. 14; Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Scott, 185 Ala. 641, 64 So. 547; Whitman Hotel Corp. v. Elliott & Watrous Engine......
-
Stanley Co. of America v. Hercules Powder Co.
...S.W.2d 95 (Tex.Sup.Ct.1952); Linforth v. San Francisco G. & E. Co., 156 Cal. 58, 103 P. 320 (Sup.Ct.1909); Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Lynne, 199 Ala. 631, 75 So. 14 (Sup.Ct.1917); Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Scott, 185 Ala. 641, 64 So. 547 (Sup.Ct.1914); 35 C.J.S., Explosives, § 11, p......
-
Krasner v. Gurley
... ... Here the action while ... in tort is several as well as joint. Louisville & N. R ... Co. et al. v. Lynne, 199 Ala. 631, 75 So. 14. Here the common ... law rule as to ... ...
-
Poston v. Clarkson Const. Co.
...to, and did, damage plaintiff's building. See Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Scott, 185 Ala. 641, 64 So. 547; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Lynne, 199 Ala. 631, 75 So. 14; Ledbetter-Johnson Co. v. Hawkins, 267 Ala. 458, 103 So.2d 748; Linforth v. San Francisco Gas & Electric Co., 156 Cal. 5......