Pollard v. Jarrett

Citation169 So. 697,233 Ala. 77
Decision Date04 June 1936
Docket Number6 Div. 859
PartiesPOLLARD v. JARRETT.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1936

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.

Action for damages by Vera Jarrett against H.C. Pollard, as receiver of the Central of Georgia Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

W.H Sadler, Jr., of Birmingham, for appellant.

John W Altman and J.L. Drennen, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

BROWN Justice.

The gravamen of counts A and B, on which the case was submitted to the jury, is the negligence of the defendant's station agent in selling plaintiff a ticket fixing her destination as Irondale and directing her to board a through train that did not stop at her destination. While ordinarily the passenger must inform himself as to the train on which the ticket entitles him to carriage, he has the right to rely on the information he obtains from the carrier's agent who sells the ticket. Lamb v. Mitchell, 16 Ala.App. 577, 80 So. 151; South & North Alabama Railroad Co. v Huffman, 76 Ala. 492, 52 Am.Rep. 349; Southern Ry Co. v. Pruett, 200 Ala. 675, 77 So. 49; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Fuqua, 187 Ala. 464, 65 So. 396, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 668.

Said counts were not, therefore, subject to the objection that they did not aver that the train which the plaintiff boarded, as instructed by the defendant's agent, was scheduled to stop at Irondale, the ticket destination.

The ground of objection to the allowance of the amendment to the complaint by interlineation, adding as an element of damages that "future child-bearing rendered impossible or usually and highly dangerous to her life," was that the amendment "comes too late." The objection was overruled without error. Code 1923, § 9513; Daniels et al. v. Milstead, 221 Ala. 353, 128 So. 447.

Assuming that the evidence elicited by the question asked the doctor, set out in the eighth assignment of error, was subject to the objection that this element of damage was not claimed in the complaint--the only ground assigned--the objection was met by the amendment which was then made, and the court did not err in overruling the objection.

It was permissible for the witness to testify that she was excited and made nervous by the announcement of the train conductor that the train would not be stopped at Irondale, and such evidence was material. Louisville &...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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