Loveless v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 422 |
| Citation | 75 So. 7,199 Ala. 587 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | LOVELESS v. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E.C. Crow, Judge.
Action by Bert Loveless against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The facts are, as gathered from the record: That appellant was injured by a piece of metal striking him in the eye, while engaged in repairing the car in the shops of defendant at Boyles, Ala. The injury occurred on or about July 10, 1914. Movements of the car are shown, beginning on June 10, 1914, until July 2, 1914, between various points in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. After July 2, 1914, it was not put to any use, and on July 9th was put in the shop at Boyles where the repair was made, and for some time after the repair was made it was used in intrastate shipments, or was simply drifting and not used for any purpose whatever. For several weeks after July 17, 1914, it was used in the Birmingham district, and between points in said district. On these facts the court directed a verdict for defendant; plaintiff having brought his action under the federal Employers' Liability Act.
Davis & Davis, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Tillman, Bradley & Morrow and John S. Stone, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
This cause was submitted and considered under new rule 46, and the opinion of the court was prepared by Mr. Justice MAYFIELD.
The complaint seeks recovery under the federal Employers' Liability Act, but the proof fails to bring the case within the influence of said act, under the authority of Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353, 37 Sup.Ct. 170, 61 L.Ed. 358, and our own case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Carter, 195 Ala. 382, 70 So. 655. Hence the trial court did not err in giving the general charge for defendant.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shidloski v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
... ... Railroad Co. v. Allen, 249 F. 283; ... Railroad Co. v. Littleton, 180 S.W. 1194; Davis ... v. Railroad Co., 10 F.2d 140; Loveless v. Railroad ... Co., 75 So. 7; Defenbaugh v. Railroad Co., 171 ... P. 647; Railroad Co. v. Owens, 101 A. 532; Moran ... v. Railroad Co., 96 ... ...
-
Bailey v. Davis
... ... Co. v. Paslick, 239 F. 713; Delaware etc. R. Co. v ... Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439; Payne v. Wynne (Tex.) ... 233 S.W. 609; Loveless v. Louisville etc. R. Co ... (Ala.) 75 So. 7; Deffenbaugh v. U. P. R. Co ... (Kan.) 171 P. 647; Herzog v. Hines (N. J.) 112 ... A. 315; ... ...
-
Shidloski v. Railroad Co.
...& A. Railroad Co. v. Allen, 249 Fed. 283; Railroad Co. v. Littleton, 180 S.W. 1194; Davis v. Railroad Co., 10 Fed. (2d) 140; Loveless v. Railroad Co., 75 So. 7; Defenbaugh v. Railroad Co., 171 Pac. 647; Railroad Co. v. Owens, 101 Atl. 532; Moran v. Railroad Co., 96 Atl. 1023, affirmed in 24......