Schmidt v. Mobile Light & R. Co.

Citation87 So. 181,204 Ala. 694
Decision Date16 December 1920
Docket Number1 Div. 136
PartiesSCHMIDT v. MOBILE LIGHT & R. CO.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Joel W. Goldsby, Judge.

Action by Christeen Schmidt against the Mobile Light & Railroad Company for damages for injury to an automobile in a collision. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

G.C Outlaw and Brown & Kohn, all of Mobile, for appellant.

Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The suit was for damages, the result of collision between a street car and an automobile at a crossing of two streets in a populous section of the city of Mobile.

The complaint contained counts for simple negligence and for the willful and wanton conduct of defendant's agents operating the street car. Defendant's pleas were the general issue to the entire complaint and of contributory negligence to the first count. Demurrer was sustained to plea 2, and overruled to plea 3, as last amended. The reporter of decisions will set out this plea.

The effect of our decisions is not that the defendant must use the word "negligently" in a plea of contributory negligence, but that the facts pleaded as a defense must show a negligent act that contributed to the damage or injury of which complaint is made. It must be admitted that there is some confusion in our decisions as to the effect of the use of the word "negligently" in a plea of contributory negligence. For illustration, in United States Cast Iron Pipe & F. Co. v. Granger, 162 Ala. 637, 640, 50 So. 159 the plea alleged that plaintiff "negligently" assumed or occupied a position or place of danger "under or near the said crane," without averring the facts. Held subject to demurrer as being merely the legal conclusion of the pleader. It would appear that expressions to the same effect are contained in S.S.S. & I. Co. v. Harrison, 200 Ala. 281, 282, 76 So. 47; B.R., L. & P. Co. v Hunt, 200 Ala. 560, 561, 76 So. 918; St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Brantley, 168 Ala. 579, 584, 53 So. 305; Sou. Cotton Oil Co. v. Walker, 164 Ala. 33, 48, 51 So. 169; B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 278, 279, 61 So. 80, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 543; and Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala. 590, 73 So. 933. On the other hand, in Pace v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 166 Ala. 519, 524, 525, 52 So. 52, it was said that, where the general facts are stated, the word "negligently" is not without appropriate and effective uses (City of Montg. v. Wyche, 169 Ala. 181, 190, 53 So. 786); that, when the facts averred are "consistent with a negative inference, it is essential that the plea should color the equivocal facts by supplying the conclusion that plaintiff's conduct was negligent." B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 279, 61 So. 80, 82 (Ann.Cas. 1916A, 543); S.S.S. & I. Co. v. Brooks, 87 So. 82.

The plea dealt with in B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Fox, 174 Ala. 657, 56 So. 1013 (plea 7), was somewhat different from plea 3 as amended in instant case, in that it did not aver that, if plaintiff's intestate had looked for said car, she could have seen it approaching in close and dangerous proximity, imperiling her attempt to cross ahead of it. The ruling of the trial court as to said plea was justified in the fact that it was "a duplicate of plea 8, and under which the defendant got the full benefit of plea 7." Plea 8 was in many respects like plea 7 with the additional averment that plaintiff's intestate "negligently" attempted to cross the track in front of and in dangerous proximity to said car, which was then and there approaching her, without looking for said car.

It is beyond question that, when the facts alleged in a plea of contributory negligence show that the act attributed to plaintiff and preventing his recovery was negligence per se on his part and contributed to his injury, it is unnecessary to allege that such act was negligently committed, done, or permitted by plaintiff. Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, supra; B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Yates, 169 Ala. 381, 387, 53 So. 915. The third ground of demurrer challenged the sufficiency of plea 3 as amended, for that it failed to show wherein said chauffeur "was under any duty to stop before undertaking to drive across defendant's track, and look and listen to ascertain whether there was a street car approaching within dangerous proximity." Thus was indicated the failure of the plea in the attempt to set up an obvious danger--the plea admits that the driver of the automobile was not conscious of it--of the approach or dangerous proximity of the street car. The failure of the plea to place upon the driver of the automobile the duty, at the time and place, "to stop, look, and listen" before proceeding down Lawrence street to its intersection with Charleston street, the point where the collision occurred, was thus challenged by the demurrer. The right of pedestrians and drivers of vehicles on the public streets was adverted to in Huey v. Dykes, 203 Ala. 231, 82 So 481, where the defense attempted to be set up by the pleas (to which demurrer was justified) proceeded upon the theory that it was the duty of intestate, riding a bicycle along the public street and at a crossing of two streets, to keep a special lookout for defendant's automobile, whereas only the general duty to exercise due care rested upon intestate in his use of the highway. Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala 97, 114, 115, 117, 118, 59 So. 597; Dozier v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 6, 1928
    ...conclusion that the act or omission charged was negligence." See Hurt v. Southern Ry. Co., 205 Ala. 182, 87 So. 533; Schmidt v. M.L. & R. Co., 204 Ala. 694, 87 So. 181. We observe at the outset that the question of sustaining demurrer to pleas as to averments of the fact that the driver was......
  • J. H. Burton & Sons Co. v. May
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 22, 1925
    ......312 Supreme Court of Alabama January 22, 1925 . . Appeal. from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Joel W. Goldsby, Judge. . . Action. for damages for sinking a barge by ... Co. v. Alexander, 93 Ala. 133, 9 So. 525. . . In. Mobile Light, etc., Co. v. Walsh, 146 Ala. 295, 40. So. 559, 9 Ann.Cas. 852, the question considered was ... Spottswood in the presence of the jury. Schmidt v. Mobile. Light & R. Co., 204 Ala. 694, 87 So. 181; Fayet v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 203 Ala. ......
  • Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 22, 1925
    ...... train,' I say, 'Yes, sir.' The next time I saw. him I just saw the light come out from between the cars. I. don't know how he got there; I didn't see them or. know how it ... J.H. Burton & Sons Co. v. May, 212 Ala. 435, 103 So. 46, 51; Schmidt v. M.L. & R. Co., 204 Ala. 694, 87. So. 181; Fayet v. St. L. & S.F.R. Co., 203 Ala. 3,. 81 So. ......
  • Boyette v. Bradley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 29, 1924
    ......Boyette against Lee C. Bradley and J. S. Pevear,. as coreceivers of the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power. Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to. have been received when a ...B. R., L. & P. Co., 200 Ala. 282, 285, 76 So. 48, and Schneider v. Mobile L. & R. Co., 146 Ala. 347, 40 So. 761. . . Charge. 9 was properly given. It ... conduct of such automobile driver. There was no error in. giving the charge. Schmidt v. Mobile Light & R. Co., . 204 Ala. 694, 87 So. 181; Anniston Elec. & Gas Co. v. Rosen, 159 ......
  • 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