Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Church

• Decision Date: 16 April 1908
• Citation: 155 Ala. 329,46 So. 457
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. CHURCH.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

46 So. 457

155 Ala. 329

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. CHURCH.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 16, 1908

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; H. A. Sharpe, Judge.

Action by Ann D. Church against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Count 1 of the complaint is as follows: "Plaintiff claims of defendant $1,999, for that theretofore, to wit, on the 21st day of February, defendant was a common carrier of passengers by means of a train on a railroad, that on said day, while plaintiff was defendant's passenger and being carried by defendant as such upon said train, and while said train was at a point on said railway in or near Mobile, Ala plaintiff's hand was caught in the car on said train between a table or other hard article on said train and the wall or partition of said car, and as a proximate consequence thereof plaintiff's hand was bruised, mashed, and otherwise injured, the nerves and blood vessels thereof were lacerated, bruised, and injured, and said hand was caused to swell very much, and that the bones thereof were broken etc., and plaintiff was rendered permanently less able to work and earn money, and was put to great trouble inconvenience, etc., and expense for medicine, medical attention, etc., in and about her efforts to heal and cure her said wounds and injuries; and plaintiff alleges that her hand was caught as aforesaid, and she suffered said injuries and damages, by reason and as a proximate consequence of the negligence of defendant in or about carrying plaintiff as its passenger as aforesaid." The demurrer was that the complaint does not sufficiently set out in what the negligence of the defendant consisted. The evidence tended to show that plaintiff was a passenger, with ticket for transportation and also a Pullman ticket, and that her injuries were received in a Pullman car, by a table which was being handled by a porter of the car falling upon her hand and pinning it to the wall.

The assignments of error numbered in the opinion are as follows "(2) The court erred in refusing the first charge requested by the appellant, which charge is as follows 'The defendant, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, is not responsible in this action for the negligent act of the Pullman Company's porter, if the jury believe from the evidence that the Pullman Company's porter was negligent.' " Assignment of error 3 is the failure to give the following charge: "If the jury believe from the evidence that plaintiff was a passenger on the Pullman Company's car at the time of her injury, then the jury must find for the defendant, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company." (8) Refusal to give the general affirmative charge. (9) Refusal to give the following charge: "If the jury believe the evidence they must find for the defendant, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, unless they believe from the evidence that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of defendant, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company in causing its train to lurch or jar." (10) Refusal to give the following charge: "If the jury believe from the evidence that the injuries to plaintiff's hand were caused by the negligence of the Pullman's porter, without any negligence on the part of defendant or its servants, except that of the porter of the Pullman Company, the jury must find for the defendant." (11) The refusal to give the following charge: "If the jury believe from the evidence that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was the negligence of an employé of the Pullman Company, the jury must find for defendant." (12) The following portion of the oral charge of the court: "For the acts of the porter of the Pullman car, operated by the railroad company as part of its train and upon its track, the railroad company is responsible as for the acts of the servants of the railroad company."

The following charges were also refused to the defendant "(4) The jury are not authorized to find on the evidence that defendant the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company's agents or servants were guilty of any negligence which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. (5) The jury are not authorized to find from the evidence that defendant the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company is responsible for the injury to plaintiff, unless the jury also believe from the evidence that the employé of the Pullman Company was guilty of negligence which proximately caused plaintiff's injury. (6) If the jury believe from the evidence that the table fell because of an unforeseen accident, and one that could not have been anticipated...