Southern Ry. Co. v. Yancy

Citation141 Ala. 246,37 So. 341
PartiesSOUTHERN RY. CO. v. YANCY.
Decision Date21 July 1904
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; W. W. Wilkerson, Judge.

Action by W. E. Yancy against the Southern Railway Company for personal injuries from being run over by a locomotive operated by defendant on its railroad. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

The complaint, as amended, contained 13 counts. A demurrer was sustained to the second count, and after the introduction of all the evidence the court, at the written request of the defendant, gave the general affirmative charge in its favor as to counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Therefore the cause was submitted to the jury only upon counts 1, 10, 11, 12, and 13. The first count of the complaint was in words and figures as follows: "First Count. The plaintiff claims of the defendant, a corporation, the sum of twenty thousand dollars as damages, for that heretofore, to wit, on the 7th day of June, 1896, the defendant was operating a railroad and running trains and locomotive engines thereon propelled by steam power, among other places to, in, and through the town of Oakman, in Walker county, Alabama, and that on said day the said defendant willfully, wantonly, and recklessly ran one of its said locomotive engines which it was then and there running and operating along, over, and upon its said railroad upon and against the plaintiff, breaking his left leg, bruising and lacerating his flesh, breaking his ribs perforating his lungs, and otherwise permanently injuring him, and he was thereby made to suffer great physical and mental pain, and rendered permanently less able to earn or provide a sustenance for himself and his family; and plaintiff avers that by reason of said injuries he was prevented from performing work or labor of any kind for a long time, his physical stamina was greatly and permanently impaired, and he was made to expend large sums of money and to incur great indebtedness and expense in an effort to preserve and save his life and effect his cure; all to his damage aforesaid. Wherefore he sues." The eleventh count, as far as is necessary to be here set out, were in words and figures as follows: "Eleventh Count. The plaintiff claims of the defendant, a corporation, engaged in the business of a common carrier of freight and passengers for hire and reward, the sum of twenty thousand dollars as damages for that heretofore, to wit, on the 7th day of June 1896, the plaintiff was passing along and upon the defendant's railroad track within the corporate limits of the town of Oakman, in Walker county, Alabama, proceeding from Coal Valley, in said county, to the defendant's depot or stopping place for its trains within said town of Oakman, for the purpose of becoming a passenger upon the defendant's east-bound passenger train then soon to be due; and the plaintiff avers that when he was at a point upon the defendant's said railroad track...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Moore
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1906
    ... ... 494; L. & N. R. R. Co., ... v. Jones, 83 Ala. 376, 3 So. 902; Central of Georgia ... R. R. Co. v. Martin, 138 Ala. 531, 36 So. 426; Southern ... Ry Co. v. Burgess (Ala Nov. term 1904) 42 So. 35 ... There ... was one ground of demurrer to one or more counts of the ... Henry, 139 Ala. 161, 34 So ... 389; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 140 Ala ... 583, 37 So. 387; Southern Ry. Co. v. Yancy (Ala.) 37 ... So. 341; Birmingham Sou. Ry. Co. v. Gunn (Ala.) 37 ... So. 329. The counts in the cases cited charged wanton or ... intentional ... ...
  • Butler v. Olshan, 6 Div. 113
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1966
    ...act. Contributory negligence is no defense to a count seeking recovery for the wilful or wanton acts of defendant. Southern Ry. Co. v. Yancey, 141 Ala. 246, 249, 37 So. 341; cases cited in Ala.Digest, Negligence, We hold, therefore, that grounds 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21 are not well taken......
  • Doucet v. Middleton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 7, 1964
    ...part of defendant's answer. Appeals were permitted under 28 U.S.C. A. § 1292(b), and thereafter consolidated. 5 Southern Railway Company v. Yancy, 1904, 141 Ala. 246, 37 So. 341; Central of Georgia Railway Company v. Freeman, 1904, 140 Ala. 581, 37 So. 387; Newberry v. Atkinson, 1913, 184 A......
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Armour & Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1921
  • 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