Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Woods

Decision Date18 April 1918
Docket Number4 Div. 777
Citation78 So. 907,201 Ala. 553
PartiesSOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO. v. WOODS.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.

Action by F.W. Woods against the Southern Cotton Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under Act April 18, 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.

Steiner Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, and B.F. Reid, of Dothan, for appellant.

T.M Espy, of Dothan, for appellee.

MAYFIELD J.

The action was by an employé against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries. The complaint was based on our Employers' Liability Act.

The only negligence alleged or relied upon was that imputed to the employer's superintendent under the second subdivision of the statute (section 3910 of the Code). The particular negligence charged to this superintendent was his failure to warn plaintiff that he had connected a belt with a certain pulley operating the spike roller, a part of a cotton gin, and certain other parts of the machinery of the gin at which plaintiff was at work at the time in question, with the result that plaintiff's hand was caught by the spikes of the roller and severely mangled. The alleged specific negligence is set up in one of the counts as follows:

"Plaintiff avers that the injury that he sustained was the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the said Walter C. Carter, who was at said time in the service or employment of the defendant, and was then and there intrusted with the superintendence of the operation of said gins, and while in the exercise of such superintendence in failing to inform him that he had connected the belt that was on said spike roller with the pulley that gave the machinery motion and that said spike roller was then in motion. Wherefore he sues."

The defendant demurred to each count of the complaint. The demurrers were sustained as to each count of the original complaint, but were overruled as to each count of the amended complaint. The amendment consisted of two new or additional counts, numbered 3 and 4.

The trial court ruled correctly in each instance. Each count of the original complaint was subject to demurrer under the rules announced by this court in the cases of Cahaba Co. v. Elliott, 183 Ala. 298, 62 So. 808, and Woodward Co. v. Marbut, 183 Ala. 310, 62 So. 804. In those cases our former rulings were reviewed, and in the latter it was said (183 Ala. 312, 62 So. 804):

"In our most recent case of the sort we held in respect to a similar count that, though it followed the language of the statute, it was subject to demurrer, because it failed to point out, even in general terms, any act of negligence on the part of the alleged superintendent with respect to his duty while so engaged. Maddox v. Chilton Warehouse Co., 171 Ala. 216, 55 So. 93. In Bear Creek Mill Co. v. Parker, 134 Ala. 293, 32 So. 700, the fifth count of the complaint there under consideration, after alleging preliminary matter about which there was no question, showed plaintiff's injuries, and that they resulted from plaintiff being caught between two cars of the defendant."

In the same opinion (183 Ala. 313, 62 So. 805), speaking to the rule of this court, it was further said:

"A complaint under the Employers' Liability Act should, in respect of certainty, conform to those rules which under our system apply to pleadings generally. Those rules permit the averment of conclusions, but conclusions when employed must ordinarily be accompanied with averments of fact whereon issues can be understood, joined and tried. L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Jones, 130 Ala. 470, 30 So. 586, citing Leach v. Bush, 57 Ala. 145, upon which have been planted all those numerous cases in which great generality in the averment of negligence has been accepted as meeting the requirements of good pleading. Certainty to a common intent in pleading is essential to the due administration of justice, and it cannot be abolished."

Counts 3 and 4, added by amendment, each met the rules required by these two cases, and also the rules required by a number of other cases, to the effect that all negligence is not actionable, and pleadings, to be sufficient to state a cause of action grounded on negligence, must affirmatively show that the negligence relied upon is actionable. Smith's Case, 171 Ala. 255, 55 So. 170.

If pleadings as to negligence show a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and a breach of that duty to the damage or injury of plaintiff, very general averments of negligence will suffice. As is often said, they need be but little more than conclusions; but the duty and its breach must be shown. Merely alleging that a given act was negligence or was negligently done, without more, is not sufficient. Such pleadings may allege negligence, but the trouble is it is not in such cases "actionable negligence." 171 Ala 255, 55 So. 170. "The decisions," observed Lord Campbell, "show that the allegation of duty in a declaration is, in all cases, immaterial, and ought never to be introduced; for, if the particular facts set forth raise the duty, the allegation is unnecessary, and, if they do not, it will be unavailable. If the particular facts stated in the declaration do...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Wright v. McCord
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 16. Dezember 1920
    ...... 310, 62 So. 804; Langhorne v. Simington, 188 Ala. 337, 66 So. 85; Sou. Cot. Oil Co. v. Woods, 201 Ala. 553, 78 So. 907; Shebly Iron Co. v. Bean, 203 Ala. 78, 82 So. 92; T.C., I. & R.R. Co. ... construct, with the aid and assistance of plaintiff and. certain other employees, a cotton seed bin elevated a. considerable distance from the ground and attached to the. building ......
  • American Ry. Express Co. v. Reid
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 28. April 1927
    ......Mays, 197 Ala. 367, 72 So. 641; Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala. 590, 73 So. 933; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Woods, 201 Ala. 553,. 78 So. 907. . . Under. this rule it is ......
  • Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Minyard
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 11. November 1920
    ......337, 339, 346, 66 So. 85, 86. . . The. subject was later considered in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Woods, 201 Ala. 553, 78 So. 907, where the negligence. charged to the ......
  • Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Sharit, 6 Div. 85
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25. März 1937
    ......Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Jones, 146 Ala. 277, 41 So. 146; Southern Railway. Co. v. Weatherlow, 153 Ala. 171, 44 So. 1019; Id., 164. Ala. 151, 51 So. 381; Barbour v. ...276; Harbison-Walker Refractories. Company v. Scott, 185 Ala. 641, 64 So. 547; Southern. Cotton Oil Co. v. Woods, 201 Ala. 553, 78 So. 907. . . However,. if the pleader undertakes to ......
  • 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