Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Stewart
Decision Date | 18 May 1911 |
Parties | SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. STEWART. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1911.
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.
Action by Wade Stewart against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Count 2 is as follows:
The demurrers were:
The witness Stenson testified that plaintiff was 28 years old when he was hurt, and that he received $2 per day; that that was the amount the contractor said he paid him, but that the witness turned in the time for plaintiff nearly as regularly as the contractor did, and that he turned in plaintiff's time at $2 per day.
The question in the third assignment of error is as follows addressed to Dr. J. H. Dunn: "Is he, or not, suffering from the injury he was suffering from at the time you made the first examination?" The answer showed that the plaintiff was suffering from the same injury that he suffered from at the time of the first examination.
The appellee propounded the following hypothetical question to Dr. Hanby: "Doctor, if a man sustains an injury such as you have described to the jury, and after two years' time he still suffered with a ruptured condition of the membranes of the bladder, would it not, in your judgment, be a permanent injury?" Objection was interposed by the appellant, and, the objection being overruled, the witness answered:
The following questions were propounded to the witness Holsenback on cross-examination: (1) "You had various contractors in different headings in that mine, requesting you almost daily for timbers to be set there?" The witness answered: "Yes, sir; I can't recollect the different contractors, nor the persons requesting timbers in the different headings, nor the times at which they requested same." (2) "Frequently you would have two or more men requesting timbers at the same time?" "Yes sir." (3) "Sometimes it would take two, three, or four days to get around to the last man, when two or three requests came at the same time?" "Yes, sir."
The following part of the oral charge was excepted to:
The second exception to the oral charge is as follows:
The third exception is as follows:
The following is charge 17: "I charge you that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages in this case for any decrease in his earning capacity."
Tillman Bradley & Morrow and M. M. Baldwin, for appellant.
Matthews & Matthews, for appellee.
Count 2 was not subject to the grounds of demurrer interposed thereto. It is true that it does not aver that the defendant negligently failed to exercise reasonable care, etc., in furnishing the plaintiff with a reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker County v. Davis
... ... v. Friedman, 187 Ala. 562, 65 So. 939; S. S ... S. & I. Co. v. Stewart, 172 Ala. 516, 55 So. 785; ... Ala. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Ward, 194 Ala ... ...
-
Edquest v. Tripp & Dragstedt Co.
...285 S. W. 302. The term “proximate result” is synonymous with the term “proximate cause.” Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Stewart, 172 Ala. 516, 55 So. 785. “Proximate cause” has been repeatedly defined by this court to be “one ‘which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Flinn
... ... sufficient as to negligence. In the case of Republic Iron ... & Steel Co. v. Williams, 168 Ala. 617, 53 So. 76, the ... In ... Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Stewart, 172 ... Ala. 516, 525, 55 So. 785, 788, it ... ...
-
Edquest v. Tripp & Dragstedt Co.
... ... the term "proximate cause." Sloss-Sheffield ... Steel & Iron Co. v. Stewart, 172 Ala. 516, 55 So. 785 ... ...