Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Pemberton
| Decision Date | 27 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 973 |
| Parties | SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. v. PEMBERTON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O.A. Steele, Judge.
Action by A.L. Pemberton against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company for damages for personal injury. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 450, § 6. Affirmed.
(9) I charge you that it is not negligence, as a matter of law, for defendant to fail to provide a light on the platform or steps leading to the freight room, if you believe from the evidence that such light was not provided.
(10) It was plaintiff's duty to use ordinary care in walking in and about the railway station of defendant on the occasion complained of.
Embry & Embry, of Ashville, and Tillman, Bradley & Morrow and T.A McFarland, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
S.W Tate, of Anniston, for appellee.
Without determining the sufficiency of the complaint, it is sufficient to say that the record discloses no ruling upon the demurrers interposed thereto.
The charges embraced in assignments of error 4, 5, and 6 attempted to inject negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which had not been pleaded, and are unlike the charge held good in the case of A.G.S.R.R.
Co. v. Bell, 76 So. 920. Moreover, if by the use of the word "sole" cause it was not intended to invoke the doctrine of contributory negligence, but to request a finding for the defendant unless its negligence, and not something else, was the cause of the injury, the defendant got the full benefit of said charges under the oral charge of the court, as the court, in effect, charged the jury that the defendant's negligence must have caused the injury before it would be liable to the plaintiff.
There was no error in refusing the charge made the basis of appellant's seventh assignment of error. If not otherwise bad, it was at least misleading, as the jury could infer therefrom that, if the station and appurtenances were constructed and maintained with ordinary care, they must find for the defendant. True, the word "maintain" is one of broad meaning; but the average jury might not take it as including the proper lighting of the premises. Moreover, this charge ignores count 1 of the complaint, to which no demurrer was sustained.
The charge made the basis of the eighth assignment of error ignores count 2 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arrick v. Fanning
...Co. v. Canfield, 177 Ala. 422, 59 So. 217; Southern R. Co. v. E. L. Kendall & Co., 14 Ala.App. 242, 69 So. 328; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Pemberton, 202 Ala. 55, 79 So. 393. It is true the diagram was not formally introduced as an exhibit in the evidence. However, the nature and character......
-
Henley v. Lollar
...Co. v. Canfield, 177 Ala. 422, 59 So. 217; Southern R. Co. v. E. L. Kendall & Co., 14 Ala.App. 242, 69 So. 328; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Pemberton, 202 Ala. 55, 79 So. 393. Our prior decision on the matters of instant concern was based on the fact that both the photograph and the diagram......
-
J. C. Byram & Co. v. Livingston
... ... 554, 112 So. 122; Berger v. Dempster, 204 Ala. 305, ... 85 So. 392; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Pemberton, ... 202 Ala. 55, 79 So. 393; Alabama Chemical Co. v ... Niles, ... ...
-
Empire Guano Co. v. Ellis
... ... Ala. Fuel & Iron Co. v ... Vaughan, 205 Ala. 589, 88 So. 857; Seaboard Air Line ... Ry. Co. v. Pemberton, 202 Ala. 55, 79 So. 393 ... The ... fifth and sixth ... ...