Pollard v. McGreggors
Decision Date | 28 March 1940 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 595. |
Citation | 239 Ala. 467,195 So. 736 |
Parties | POLLARD v. MCGREGGORS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 9, 1940.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W. W. Wallace, Judge.
Action for wrongful death by H. L. McGreggors, as administrator of the estate of William Howard McGreggors, deceased, against Henry D. Pollard, as receiver of the Central of Georgia Railway Company, and others. From a judgment for plaintiff named defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
W. H Sadler, Jr., of Birmingham, for appellant.
Harsh Harsh & Hare, of Birmingham, for appellees.
The defendant is the receiver in charge of the operation of the Central of Georgia Railway.
For many years, in the town of Vincent, Alabama, a given area of the right of way was used as a place for the acceptance of crossties offered for sale by different persons in that community. The practice was for the seller to bring the crossties and stack them at this place, where they would remain until defendant's inspector made his inspection accepting those meeting specifications, and rejecting those that did not. There were requirements for stacking the ties which were 7 inches by 9 inches by 8 feet, and to be arranged in stacks 5 or 6 feet high. They were stacked in alternate layers of two and seven, and two outside ties of the layers of seven and the layers of two being placed on their sides so as to facilitate inspection. The stacks were about 5 feet apart.
Late in the afternoon of a December day, Howard McGreggors, twelve years of age, and his brother Henry, twenty-two months younger, were playing on the piles of crossties. Henry jumped safely from one stack to another, and Howard followed, but lost his balance and fell backward. Henry testified: The witness further states: Henry and his brother had lived in Vincent about eight months, and were "down there playing on these ties nearly every day." Howard's father testified that the crossties were stacked at this time as they had always been, the end ones stacked on the edge; and he described the tie that fell on Howard as "a twisted or curved tie."
Specifications disclosed that for acceptance there was allowance for a curve in a tie. It appears these ties had been stacked for about three weeks, and were the property of one McGraw, who had them there for inspection and sale to defendant. McGraw had bought them from other parties, who, according to custom, stacked them there for inspection. No representative of defendant is there to receive them as they are brought up and stacked. The purpose of placing end ties on edge was for the better inspection of those that are laid flat.
Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that children played on these crossties with much frequency without warning, and in plain view of defendant's agents. Plaintiff, father of Howard, had seen his children and others playing on these stacks, but never told any of his children to stay off except his little boy.
The foregoing statement should suffice as presenting the salient features of the case, both for plaintiff and defendant.
Plaintiff insists there was actionable negligence of defendant in permitting the crossties to be stacked on its own premises by others with the curved or twisted tie that fell placed on edge and in position to be disturbed from its resting place and knocked down by a child playing on the stack.
Of course for a recovery in actions of this character, there must first be shown a breach of duty. Cox v. Alabama Water Co., 216 Ala. 35, 112 So. 352, 53 A.L.R. 1336. That a child, as well as an adult, may be a trespasser is well settled by our cases (Luallen v. Woodstock Iron & Steel Corp., 236 Ala. 621, 184 So. 182); and under the uncontroverted proof, Howard, the unfortunate boy, must be held to have been a trespasser. Upon general principle, therefore, defendant owed him no duty save not to wantonly or intentionally injure him.
Plaintiff's right of recovery must rest therefore upon the doctrine of the turntable, or, as otherwise denominated, attractive nuisance cases. But we think the authorities very generally deny recovery upon such a state of facts, and that they are in harmony with our own decisions treating kindred questions.
Turning first to authorities elsewhere, we find the decided weight against a recovery upon such facts as here presented. Perhaps the case of Carr v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co., 123 Or. 259, 261 P. 899, 904, 60 A.L.R. 1434, from the Supreme Court of Oregon contains the fullest discussion of any, with citation of other authorities, and is here much in point. The conclusion of nonliability is in fact rested upon the holding that crossties stacked on the railroad right of way do not constitute such an attractive nuisance as to bring the case within the doctrine of turntable cases, the court saying: "If the law should regard such a common object as a pile of ties an attractive nuisance, it would lead to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Birmingham Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Alley, 6 Div. 385.
... ... trespasser thereon in ejecting him from the truck is not to ... injure him wantonly or intentionally. Pollard v ... McGreggors, 239 Ala. 467, 195 So. 736; Perry Supply ... Co. v. Brown, 221 Ala. 290, 128 So. 227; ... Brookside-Pratt Mining Co. v. Booth, ... ...
-
Kahn v. James Burton Co.
...R. & Nav. Co., 123 Or. 259, 261 P. 899, 60 A.L.R. 1434; Anderson v. Peters, 22 Tenn.App. 563, 124 S.W.2d 717; Pollard v. McGreggors, 239 Ala. 467, 195 So. 736; Lovell v. Southern Ry. Co., 257 Ala. 561, 59 So.2d 807; Holland v. Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., 296 Mich. 668, 296 N.W. 833; Marti......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Kirkpatrick
...stack of concrete blocks); Lovell v. Southern Ry. Co., 257 Ala. 561, 563, 59 So.2d 807 (piled steel girders); Pollard v. McGreggors, 239 Ala. 467, 469, 195 So. 736, 738 (pile of railroad crossties). The reason for refusal of the court to extend the doctrine to such common objects is stated ......
-
Mullins v. Pannell
... ... Woodstock Iron & Steel Corp., 236 Ala. 621, 184 So. 182; Pollard v. McGreggors, ... 239 Ala. 647, 195 So. 736; Lovell v. Southern Ry. Co., 257 Ala. 561, 59 So.2d 807, and [289 Ala. 255] defendant owed him no duty ... ...