Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller
Decision Date | 23 March 1933 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 306. |
Citation | 147 So. 149,226 Ala. 366 |
Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. MILLER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.
Action for damages by J. A. Miller against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Stokely Scrivner, Dominick & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Taylor & Higgins, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Plaintiff a resident of the neighborhood and entirely familiar with the crossing, in disregard of the doctrine of "stop, look and listen," ran his Buick car, at an estimated speed of ten or fifteen miles per hour, into the side of defendant's engine tank, and recovered a judgment for the damages sustained. There were no obstructions to impair his view, but the "visibility was not good," due to cloudy conditions following rain and failure of his windshield wiper to properly function. Manifestly there could be no recovery based upon any initial negligence of defendant. Ala. Great So. Rwy. Co. v. Durr, 222 Ala. 504, 133 So. 56; Central of Georgia Rwy. Co. v. Porter, 207 Ala. 417, 93 So. 394; Hines v. Cooper, 205 Ala. 70, 88 So. 133; Hines v. Champion, 204 Ala. 227, 85 So. 511; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Rush, 208 Ala. 516, 94 So. 577; 52 Corpus Juris, 353, 354. "The law thus imposes a continuing duty to see that the way is clear before attempting to cross." Southern Rwy. Co. v. Randle, 221 Ala. 435, 128 So. 894, 897.
Plaintiff insists, however, a case of subsequent negligence is made by the proof, which must rest upon negligent conduct after the discovery of plaintiff's peril. Johnson v. Birmingham R., L. & P. Co., 149 Ala. 529, 43 So. 33.
The argument is that the engineer saw the peril and the signal of the brakeman, Allen, and failed to make proper efforts to avoid the collision. Undisputedly the engine moved only a few feet (five or six) after the impact. This would indicate the engineer heard the alarm of the brakeman and acted promptly. Whether he saw plaintiff previous to this is left to conjecture, as there is no testimony showing where he was looking at the time or indicating when he discovered, if he did so discover, that plaintiff would likely collide.
The case cited by plaintiff (Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Calvert, 172 Ala. 597, 55 So. 812) was made more explicit as to the facts in Bason v. Ala. Great So. Rwy. Co., 179 Ala. 299, 60 So. 922, 923, and as thus explained is found inapplicable to the facts of this case-a sufficient outline of which appears in the report of the case.
Plaintiff's counsel engage in some calculation to estimate the distance plaintiff's car was from the crossing when the brakeman discovered he was not likely to stop. St. L. & S.W. R. R. Co. v. Simpson, 286 U.S. 346, 52 S.Ct. 520, 521, 76 L.Ed. 1152. But it is plain the argument as to time rests upon a matter of seconds which are conjectural only, and the following observations of the United States Supreme Court in St. L. & S.W. R. R. Co. v. Simpson, supra, find application: So here the duty of plaintiff to stop, look, and listen was a continuing one, which persisted to the moment of the collision, and under the circumstances shown may be said to correspond with the "primary duty" referred to in Davis v. Sorrell, 213 Ala. 191, 104 So. 397, following the decision in Davis v. Kennedy, 266 U.S. 147, 45 S.Ct. 33, 69 L.Ed. 212. See, also, Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 218 Ala. 384, 118 So. 565; Seaboard Air Line Rwy. Co. v. Johnson, 217 Ala. 251, 115 So. 168.
As to the duty devolving on the plaintiff to stop, look, and listen, the following from our case of Saxon v. Central of Georgia Rwy. Co., 192 Ala. 434, 68 So. 313, 314, is appropriate:
Adverting to the alleged negligence of the engineer, the observations of this court in Bason v. Ala. Gr. So. R. R. Co., supra, are applicable:
Neither the speed of plaintiff's car nor that of the train can be classed as reckless, and of course...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Grizzard
... ... 658, 21 ... S.Ct. 275, 45 L.Ed. 361; Northwestern Pacific R. Co. v ... Bobo, 290 U.S. 499, 54 S.Ct. 263, 78 L.Ed. 462; ... Southern R. Co. v. Miller, 226 Ala. 366, 147 So ... 149; Alabama Power Co. v. Pierre, 236 Ala. 521, 183 ... And ... contributory negligence is ... ...
-
Bledsoe v. Missouri, K. & T.R. Co.
... ... To the ... same effect, see Simpson v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., ... 276 Mich. 653, 268 N.W. 769, and Brown v. Southern Ry ... Co., 5 Cir., 61 F.2d 399 ... In ... Coleman v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 287 Ill.App ... 483, 5 N.E.2d 103, it was held that ... The ... following cases are to the same effect. The list is not ... intended to be complete: Southern Railway Co. v ... Miller, 226 Ala. 366, 147 So. 149; Roberts v ... Louisville & N. R. Co., Ala.Sup., 186 So. 457; ... Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Switzer, 275 Ky. 834, ... ...
-
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Williams, 22771.
...R. Co. v. Flowers, 1941, 241 Ala. 446, 3 So.2d 21; Southern Ry. Co. v. Summers, 1936, 232 Ala. 417, 168 So. 179; Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller, 1933, 226 Ala. 366, 147 So. 149; Saxon v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 1915, 192 Ala. 434, 68 So. 313; Weatherly v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 190......
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Martin
... ... negligence no recovery could be had upon any theory of ... initial simple negligence, and the trial court so instructed ... the jury. Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller, 226 Ala. 366, ... 147 So. 149 ... Plaintiff's ... case, in the last analysis, was rested upon the doctrine of ... ...