Tannehill v. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1911
• Citation: 177 Ala. 297,58 So. 198
• Parties: TANNEHILL v. BIRMINGHAM RY., LIGHT & POWER CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

58 So. 198

177 Ala. 297

TANNEHILL v. BIRMINGHAM RY., LIGHT & POWER CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 30, 1911

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1912.

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. W. Ferguson, Judge.

Action by Amanda Tannehill against the Birmingham Railway, Light &amp Power Company for injuries alleged to have been received by her while a passenger in alighting from a car. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

There was but one count in the complaint, charging simple negligence. The pleas were: (1) The general issue. (2) Contributory negligence, in alighting from the car while in motion between stations, and after being warned not to do so. (3) Contributory negligence in alighting from the car while it was in motion between stations, at a time when it was obviously dangerous to do so. (4) Contributory negligence in alighting from a car while in motion between stations, and while running at a speed greater than six miles an hour. Demurrers were interposed to these pleas and overruled.

The following is the charge requested by plaintiff and refused (7) "The court charges the jury that a negligent act is none the less negligently performed because of the good faith which characterizes it."

The following charges were given for the defendant: (2) "I charge you that, if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that plaintiff alighted from said car between stations while it was in motion, and that her so doing proximately contributed to her injuries, then you must find for the defendant." (3) "If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff alighted from said car while it was in motion between stations, and that the car was at said time being carefully and properly operated, then I charge you plaintiff assumed the risk of injury which proximately resulted from such motion of said car." (4) "While it is not negligence as a matter of law for a passenger to alight from a slowly moving street car, yet I charge you that, if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that plaintiff alighted from said car while it was in motion between stations, and that at said time the said car was being carefully and properly operated, and that her said so alighting from said car while in motion was the proximate cause of her injury, then you must find for the defendant." (5) "If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that plaintiff alighted from said car while it was in motion between stations, and after being warned not to do so, and that her so doing proximately caused her said alleged injury, then you must find for the defendant."

Denson & Denson, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Tillman Bradley & Morrow, and Charles E. Rice, all of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

As we view the evidence in this case, there was no room or field for the defense of contributory negligence, and under no aspect of the proof was such a defense available to the defendant, or was the ruling as to such a defense prejudicial to the plaintiff. The...