St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Mills

• Decision Date: 17 October 1929
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 269.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. MILLS.

124 So. 231

220 Ala. 107

ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. MILLS.

6 Div. 269.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 17, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.

Action by R. S. Mills against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Ruling requiring flagman, alleged to have shoved passenger from train, to detail duties in respect to assisting passenger from train, held not erroneous.

Count 3 of the complaint is as follows:

"The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of $2,500 damages for that, heretofore, on, to wit, October 29, 1927, the defendant was operating trains between Winfield and Glen Allen and other points, and as such was a common carrier of passengers for hire or reward. Plaintiff alleges that on to wit, said date, he bought a ticket at Winfield to Glen Allen, to be carried in one of defendant's trains from Winfield to Glen Allen, and as such became a passenger upon one of defendant's said trains. Plaintiff further alleges that when the said train upon which he was riding reached his destination, and that as he attempted to get off of the said train at Glen Allen, the said train was caused to give a quick lurch or jerk, thereby throwing plaintiff from the train to the ground with great force injuring plaintiff as alleged in count 1 of this complaint.

"Plaintiff alleges that he suffered his said injuries and damages by reason and as a proximate consequence of the negligence of an agent, servant, or employee of the defendant, while acting within the line of his duty and scope of his authority as such, in that such agent, servant, or employee negligently shoved or pushed plaintiff from or off of said train at Glen Allen, and, as a proximate consequence of such negligence, plaintiff suffered the said injuries and damages as are set forth in count 1 of this complaint."

Defendant's plea 7 is as follows:

"For further answer defendant says that plaintiff was guilty of negligence which contributed proximately to his injury in this that plaintiff was a passenger upon defendant's train, having a ticket which entitled him to travel to the station on defendant's railroad, known as Glen Allen, Alabama; that said train was stopped at Glen Allen, Alabama, long enough for plaintiff to have gotten off of said train in safety, but that he failed to do so, and then waited until said train was in motion, undertook to step or jump from said train and thus received the injuries complained of."

The following charges were refused to defendant:

"3. If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the station of Glen Allen, Alabama, was properly called and that the train stopped there a sufficient length of time to enable plaintiff to alight from said train and that plaintiff came out on the platform of said train after it had begun moving, and attempted to get off of said train while it was moving, then I charge you that defendant was not guilty of any negligence and you should return a verdict for the defendant."

"5. If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the station of Glen Allen, Alabama, was properly called by defendant and that its train was stopped there a sufficient length of time to enable plaintiff to alight but that plaintiff did not get off of said train while it was standing still, but waited until it began moving away and then attempted to get off of said train while it was in motion and before defendant's employees were able to stop the train, then I charge you that defendant was not guilty of any negligence and you should return a verdict for the defendant." "9. Even though you might believe from the evidence that defendant's train did not stop at Glen Allen, Alabama, a sufficient length of time in order to enable plaintiff to alight from it, it was still plaintiff's duty to give defendant's employees a sufficient opportunity to stop said train in order to enable him to get off.

"10. Even though you might believe from the evidence that defendant's train did not stop at Glen Allen, Alabama, a sufficient length of time in order to enable plaintiff to alight from it, it was still plaintiff's duty to give defendant's employees a sufficient opportunity to stop said train in order to enable him to get off, and if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that plaintiff did not give defendant's employees a reasonable opportunity to stop said train, but that plaintiff attempted to get off of said train while it was in motion and on account of his attempt to get off of said train, was injured, then you can not hold the defendant liable on account of said injuries."

"17. If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that plaintiff did not have time to leave the train during its stop at Glen Allen, Alabama, and that after said train had left Glen Allen, Alabama, and without any warning to the conductor or any other employee of the defendant, plaintiff stepped or jumped from the train after it was in motion, he was guilty of contributory negligence which bars his right to recover for injuries sustained."

"22. If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that plaintiff was carried safely to Glen Allen, Alabama, on time and that he was given reasonable notice that the train...