TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad v. Childers

Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad Co. v. Childers

Kan. City, Memphis & Birmingham R.R. v. Childers, 32 So. 717 (Ala. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 28, 1902
Judges
Haralson
Citations
32 So. 717132 Ala. 6111902 Ala. LEXIS 119
Cited by 8
Headnotes
Action against Railroad Company to 'recover Damages for Killing Goto. 1. Action for alleged negligent killing of cow; when general affirmative charge properly refused. — In am action against a railroad company to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of a cow, where the evidence on the part of the plaintiff tends to show that the cow was killed by a .train on the defendant’s road running east to west; that the track of the road east of where me cow was found was straight for at least a quarter of a mile, upon this evidence it is open, to the jury to infer that by the exercise of due diligence on the part of the engineer, the animal might have been seen in time to have avoided killing her, and, therefore, the general affirmative charge requested by the defendant Is properly refused.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Walker. Tried before the Hon. A. A. Coleman. This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of a cow. Issue was joined upon the plea of the general issue. The plaintiff proved the ownership of the cow killed. cited 16 Am. & Eng. Encv. Law, 448,' § 13; A. G. 8. R. R. Go. v. Boyd, 124 Ala. 525. cited E. G. M. & B. R. R. Go. v. Watson, 91 Ala. 483; L. & N. R. R. Go. v. Gentry, 103 Ala. 635; L. & N. R. R. Go. v. Davis, 103 Ala. 661.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Haralson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HARALSON, J.

— The proof on the part of the plaintiff tended to show that the cow was killed by a train on defendant’s road running from east to west; that the track of the road east of where she was found was straight for at least a quarter of a mile, and that there was a curve in the road about two- hundred yards west of that point. If this was true, in view of the fact that persons running a train are charged with the duty of keeping a lookout for animals and using diligent efforts to avoid injuring them, the character of the road, at and on each side of the place of the accident, left it open to' the jury to infer, that by the exercise of due diligence on the part of the engineer, the animal might have been seeri in time to avoid killing her. In such a state of the case, it cannot properly be affirmed that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on the part of those operating the train. —A. G. S. R. R. Co. v. Boyd, 124 Ala. 525 ; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 103 Ala. 661 ; Ib. v. Gentry, 103 Ala. 635 . The general charge for defendant was properly refused.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1907: 11941: 11954: 21964: 11973: 11979: 11989: 119072026peak 1954 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Green v. City of Birmingham4 So. 2d 394 (Ala. 1941)
  2. Wallis v. State286 So. 2d 909 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)
  3. Mobile & Ohio Railway Co. v. Glover43 So. 719 (Ala. 1907)
  4. Nichols v. State160 So. 2d 619 (Ala. 1964)
  5. Gainer v. State553 So. 2d 673 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)
  6. McAdams v. State378 So. 2d 1197 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Gainer v. State553 So. 2d 673 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)
  2. McAdams v. State378 So. 2d 1197 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)
  3. Wallis v. State286 So. 2d 909 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)
  4. Nichols v. State160 So. 2d 619 (Ala. 1964)
  5. Peinhardt v. State76 So. 2d 179 (Ala. 1954)
  6. Peinhardt v. State76 So. 2d 176 (Ala. Ct. App. 1954)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Ala. Great Southern R.R. v. Boyd, 124 Ala. 525 (1899) 16
Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Davis, 103 Ala. 661 (1893) 13
Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Gentry, 103 Ala. 635 (1893) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list