Pratt v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1910
• Citation: 165 Ala. 501,51 So. 604
• Parties: PRATT v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

51 So. 604

165 Ala. 501

PRATT v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 20, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. O. Lane, Judge.

Action by R. L. Pratt against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Jere C King, for appellant.

Weatherly & Stokely, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The court below gave the affirmative charge for the defendant (appellee) evidently upon the theory that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence that contributed proximately to his injury. We concur in the conclusion entertained and applied below. The plaintiff was a switch engine foreman. The engine had been at rest for some time in consequence of a "block" caused by another train. The engine, of the switch engine type, was started in the direction of plaintiff, he standing between the rails of the track over which the engine was approaching him, at the rate of from two to four miles an hour. Though knowing of the approach of the engine, he remained where he was, and when the engine reached a point within stepping distance he undertook to and did place his foot on the footboard, which, there was evidence tending to show, was bent or so out of condition as to render it difficult to stand upon it or hold a footing on it, and reached for the handhold. The evidence was in dispute as to whether there was a handhold or not. The plaintiff testified there was none, and his effort to grab it, and thereby maintain his place on the footboard, failed. He immediately fell in front of the engine and was injured. There is evidence to the effect that servants, such as this plaintiff was, had the right to ride on the footboards on switch engines. However, this testimony had no tendency to show that proper prudence was employed in attempting to board the engine as plaintiff did.

The chief point of contention for appellant seems to be that since a properly constructed or equipped switch engine should have unbent footboards at the forward and rear ends, and also a handhold or handholds, the proximate cause of this injury should be ascribed to the bent footboard, or to the absence of a proper handhold, or to both, and, in the operation relegating the negligent act of the plaintiff in attempting as and when he did, to board the engine to the creating of a condition, merely, upon which the imperfections of the mechanism referred to operated to afford the proximate...