Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Gallasch
Decision Date | 18 October 1923 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 241 |
Citation | 97 So. 733,210 Ala. 219 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | MOBILE LIGHT & R. CO. v. GALLASCH. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney, Judge.
Action by Lizzie Gallasch against the Mobile Light & Railroad Company for personal injuries caused by being thrown from a street car while in the act of alighting therefrom. From a judgment for plaintiff for $1,200, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant.
Outlaw & Kilborn and Inge & Bates, all of Mobile, for appellee.
True the counts charge the injury to the plaintiff as proximately caused by the negligence of the motorman, and there was proof that he was acting upon signals or instructions from the conductor. If he acted solely upon the orders or instructions of the conductor, with no notice that a compliance with such instructions would probably produce injury, his act would not be negligence. A. G. S. R. R. v. Richie, 111 Ala 297, 20 So. 49. The proof, however, in the case at bar afforded a reasonable inference from which the jury could infer that, notwithstanding the motorman received a signal from the conductor, he knew of plaintiff's location and position and that she would probably be injured by starting the car or raising the steps, and the trial court did not err in refusing the affirmative charge requested by the defendant as to the entire complaint or either of the counts upon the theory that the negligence as charged against the motorman was not proven.
Charge 6 requested by the defendant does not appear to have been indorsed "Given" or "Refused" by the trial court, as the statute requires so as to authorize this court to consider same. It is sufficient to say, however, that it was fully covered by defendant's given charge "A," which is perhaps more favorable to the defendant than charge 6.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Clair County v. Bukacek, 7 Div. 447
...were so erroneous and prejudicial that the same probably influenced the jury to the prejudice of the defendant. Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Gallasch, 210 Ala. 219, 97 So. 733. The trial court was present and was an eyewitness to all of the proceedings and in overruling the defendant's motions ......
-
Harvey Ragland Co. v. Newton, 6 Div. 211
...Co. v. Bowers, [252 Ala. 49, 39 So.2d 402] supra; American Railway Express Co. v. Reid, 216 Ala. 479, 113 So. 507; Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Gallasch, 210 Ala. 219, 97 So. 733.' Grounds 14 and 15 are concerned with rulings of the court during the crossexamination of Highway Patrolman Boutwel......
-
Birmingham Elec. Co. v. Walden
...... facts. To collate the authorities would lend little light,. and this is more. [31 So.2d 764] . aptly true when the amount of damages is to be based on ...The following. authorities lend support to our view. Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Gallasch, 210 Ala. 219, 97 So. 733; Sloss Sheffield. Steel & Iron Co. v. ......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Grauer
...... T.R.N. Co. v. Walls, 209 Ala. 320, 96 So. 266;. Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409, 96 So. 187; Mobile. L. & R. Co. v. Gallasch, 210 Ala. 219, 97 So. 733;. B.T.L. & P. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, ......