Vulcan Rivet Corporation v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 14 January 1926
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 478
• Citation: 108 So. 3,214 Ala. 378
• Parties: VULCAN RIVET CORPORATION v. LAWRENCE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

108 So. 3

214 Ala. 378

VULCAN RIVET CORPORATION v. LAWRENCE.

6 Div. 478

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 14, 1926

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.

Action for damages for personal injuries by W.B. Lawrence against the Vulcan Rivet Corporation. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Nesbit & Sadler, of Birmingham, for appellant.

W.A Denson, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

This case was tried upon a complaint containing a single count and said count charges that plaintiff was injured while upon the premises of defendant, where he was invited and had a right to be. It also describes the nature and cause of the injury, and that it was caused by the negligence of defendant's agents or servants while acting in the line or scope of their employment. It says he was thrown to the ground by becoming entangled with certain rods, wires, or material, and that the agents or servants of the defendant negligently caused him to be thrown to the ground. If he was thrown to the ground by becoming entangled with the rods, wires, or other material, and as the defendant's servants negligently caused him to be thrown to the ground, it must have of necessity been due to the fact that the negligence causing the injury was in placing or permitting the rods and wires to be where the plaintiff became entangled in same and was thrown to the ground. The complaint shows a causal connection between the injury and negligence, and it has been long and repeatedly held that the acts constituting the negligence, the quo modo, need not be set out. L. & N.R.R. v. Holland, 51 So. 365, 164 Ala. 79, 137 Am.St.Rep. 25; L. & N.R.R. v. Marbury Lumber Co., 28 So. 438, 125 Ala. 237, 50 L.R.A. 620; Southern R.R. v. Arnold, 50 So. 293, 162 Ala. 574. The trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the complaint.

It was a question for the jury as to whether or not the agents or servants of the defendant were guilty of negligence in causing or permitting the rods and wires to be and remain in dangerous proximity to the track over which cars were frequently passing and upon the steps or platforms of which the trainmen were often engaged in discharging their duty. It was also a question for the jury as to whether or not the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; that is appreciated the danger of being on the lower step as...