Luallen v. Woodstock Iron & Steel Corporation
Decision Date | 06 October 1938 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 485. |
Citation | 184 So. 182,236 Ala. 621 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | LUALLEN v. WOODSTOCK IRON & STEEL CORPORATION. |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1938.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Lamar Field, Judge.
Action under Homicide Act, Code 1923, § 5696, by John W. Luallen, as administrator of the estate of Cecil Luallen, deceased against the Woodstock Iron & Steel Corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Rutherford Lapsley, of Anniston, and Hugh A. Locke, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Knox Acker, Sterne & Liles and Fred L. Blackmon, all of Anniston for appellee.
Upon the discontinuance by defendant of the operation of its furnace on a tract of land in Anniston, there was left uncovered a cemented pit or excavation, more than five hundred feet in length and fifteen feet in width. Rain water accumulated and continued in this pit for several years, varying in depth from five to twenty feet. The cement side walls are perpendicular, and the pool was unenclosed. It is situated on the west side of the tract approximately one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet from the highway that parallels the Southern Railway right-of-way, on the east side of the tracks which are between the pool and the highway.
At first a number of notices against trespassing were placed on the property, and a watchman employed, but the services of a watchman were discontinued several years ago, and no notices posted in the last two or three years, though the defendant's president states He admits there are paths on the property where people are constantly crossing, and that "people are constantly on that property." He further states: "I did not know or was not called to my attention that children were playing around this pool or using that part of it as a playground."
A number of children resided with their parents on "Furnace Hill" across the highway from this property, and plaintiff offered proof that children had been frequently seen playing around this pool, and many of the public walked across the property. The pool was of course open to full view.
Plaintiff's child, a boy eight years of age, was with his companion playing, with a stick in the water, on the side of the pool when he lost his balance and fell in, and was drowned. Hence this suit, the result of which was a verdict for defendant, following the giving of the general affirmative charge in its favor. And this action of the court presents the question of prime importance on this appeal.
Upon principles now well established in this Court, the ruling of the trial court is to be sustained. That a child, as well as an adult, may be a trespasser is well settled (Ford v. Planters' Chemical & Oil Co., 220 Ala. 669, 126 So. 866), and we think that under the uncontroverted proof plaintiff's intestate must be held to have been a trespasser.
While counsel for plaintiff disclaim any reliance upon the doctrine of attractive nuisance, yet it would seem their argument tends to show that in large part plaintiff's case must rest upon that doctrine, and some of their cited authorities so disclose.
In Cobb v. Lowe Mfg. Co., 227 Ala. 456, 150 So. 687, after freely admitting that pools have a lure for children, the Court added [page 688]: This holding was in perfect accord with the previous decisions of the Court. Cox v. Alabama Water Co., 216 Ala. 35, 112 So. 352, 53 A.L.R. 1336; Eades v. American Cast-Iron Pipe Co., 208 Ala. 556, 94 So. 593; Ellison v. Alabama Marble Co., 223 Ala. 371, 136 So. 787; Athey v. Tenn. Coal, Iron & R. Co., 191 Ala. 646, 68 So. 154. See, also, W. F. Bradley Lumber Co. v. Crowell, Ala. App., 178 So. 66, certiorari denied 235 Ala. 223, 178 So. 68.
And we have held the doctrine of the "turntable" cases is inapplicable where the danger is obvious and patent. Williams v. Bolding, 220 Ala. 328, 124 So. 892; Ford v. Planters' Chemical Co., supra.
Looking at the proof most favorably to plaintiff, all that appears is that defendant knew there were those who constantly trespassed upon its property, and the further fact, though not traced directly to defendant's knowledge, that children often played around the pool.
Answering a like situation, this Court in Ellison v. Alabama Marble Co., supra, said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maher v. City of Casper
...915; Demmer v. City of Eureka, 78 Cal.App.2d 708, 178 P.2d 472; Avery v. Morse, 149 Misc.R. 318, 267 N.Y.S. 210; Luallen v. Iron & Steel Corp., 236 Ala. 621, 184 So. 182; Dennis v. Spillers, 199 Okl. 311, 185 P.2d 465. See also Kemp v. Doe Run Lead Co., Mo.App., 34 S.W.2d 1002; Peters v. Bo......
-
Birmingham Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Alley, 6 Div. 385.
... ... v. Forrister, 158 Ala. 477, ... 482, 48 So. 69; Luallen v. Woodstock Iron & Steel Corp., ... 236 Ala. 621, 184 So ... ...
-
Massey v. Wright
...doctrine of attractive nuisance is inapplicable. Republic Steel Corp. v. Tillery, 261 Ala. 34, 72 So.2d 719; Luallen v. Woodstock Iron & Steel Corp., 236 Ala. 621, 184 So. 182; Ford v. Planters' Chem. & Oil Co., 220 Ala. 669, 126 So. 866; Williams v. Bolding, 220 Ala. 328, 124 So. 892; Eade......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Green
...has continuously held that such are not within the influence of the attractive nuisance doctrine. As stated in Luallen v. Woodstock Iron and Coal Corp., 236 Ala. 621, 184 So. 182: 'In Cobb v. Lowe Mfg. Co., 227 Ala. 456, 150 So. 687, after freely admitting that pools have a lure for childre......