Owen v. Southern Ry. Co.

Decision Date19 March 1931
Docket Number7 Div. 21.
Citation222 Ala. 499,133 So. 33
PartiesOWEN v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleburne County; R. B. Carr, Judge.

Action for damages by W. A. Owen against the Southern Railway Company for negligent killing of a dog. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals.

Affirmed.

Merrill Jones & Whiteside, of Anniston, for appellant.

Knox Acker, Sterne & Liles, of Anniston, for appellee.

FOSTER J.

Usually the duty owing by the operatives of a train of cars to an animal on the track is not discharged by a proper equipment and operation of the train, and the diligent and skillful use of the appliances to avoid the injury after a discovery of the presence of the animal on the track, as hypothesized in given charges 5 and 8, but it is the duty of the engineer to keep such constant lookout for animals on the track as is consistent with the performance of his other duties. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Stark, 126 Ala. 365, 28 So 411; Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Dumas, 131 Ala. 172, 30 So. 867; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Bingham, 182 Ala. 640, 62 So. 111; Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 200 Ala. 73, 75 So. 401; Id., 202 Ala. 496, 80 So. 880.

But this rule does not apply to dogs. They are said to have the agility and celerity in avoiding and escaping danger not possessed by the ordinary lower animal. From this instinct one may presume that a dog will avoid danger, or not move into it. But the presumption that he will avoid an existing danger is of course not indulged if he is helpless or indifferent to the danger. Alabama City G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Lumpkin, 195 Ala. 290, 70 So. 162; Tennessee, A. & G. R. Co. v. Daniel, 200 Ala. 600, 76 So. 958; Hines, etc., v. Schrimscher, 205 Ala. 550, 88 So. 661; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Coxe, 218 Ala. 25, 117 So. 293; 52 Corpus Juris, 24.

From this rule it follows that an engineer is not under duty to use care in discovering the presence of a dog on the track unless there is something in the surroundings which would stimulate such duty other than his mere presence on the track in the open country, where no statute applies. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Joe Green (Ala. Sup.) 133 So. 294; 52 Corpus Juris, 24.

As this suit is for the death of a dog, charges 5 and 8 were given for defendant without error.

Given charge No. 9 states the rule of duty to which we have referred, unless it may be said that it is fatal not to include the alternative "that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Lloyd v. Alton Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 1 Noviembre 1943
    ...Co., 117 Mo. App. 691, 93 S.W. 281; Flowerree v. Thornberry, 183 S.W. 359; Fowles v. Railroad Co., 73 S.C. 308, 53 S.E. 534; Owen v. Southern Ry., 133 So. 33; Jones v. Bond, 40 Fed. 281; Moore v. Elect. Ry., 48 S.E. 822. (7) Dog knew of approach of railroad motorcar and was in pursuit of it......
  • Lloyd v. Alton R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 1 Noviembre 1943
    ...117 Mo.App. 691, 93 S.W. 281; Fowles v. Railroad Co., 73 S.C. 308, 53 S.E. 534; Smith v. Wells, 326 Mo. 525, 31 S.W.2d 1014; Owen v. So. Ry. Co., 133 So. 33; Moore v. Elect. Ry., 48 So. 822. (20) The court erred in refusing defendant's requested instructions N, O, P, R, T, and U, for the re......
  • Lloyd v. Alton R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Diciembre 1941
    ...8 S.W.2d 832. (2) The trial court erred in granting a new trial because of the giving of defendant's requested instruction H. Owen v. Southern Ry., 133 So. 33; Moore v. Elec. Ry. Co., 48 So. 822; Lawless Gas Light Co., 72 Mo.App. 679. (3) The peremptory instruction requested by the defendan......
  • Lloyd v. Alton Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Diciembre 1941
    ...8 S.W. (2d) 832. (2) The trial court erred in granting a new trial because of the giving of defendant's requested instruction H. Owen v. Southern Ry., 133 So. 33; Moore v. Elec. Ry. Co., 48 So. 822; Lawless v. Gas Light Co., 72 Mo. App. 679. (3) The peremptory instruction requested by the d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT