TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Loveless v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

Loveless v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

Loveless v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 75 So. 7 (Ala. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 5, 1917
Judges
Anderson, Mayfield, Somerville, Thomas
Citations
75 So. 7199 Ala. 5871917 Ala. LEXIS 226
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Personal Injury Action. Commerce; Injuries to Servant; Federal Employers’ Liability Act; Sufficiency. — A car repairer injured while working on a car, used the previous week in interstate commerce, but having “drifted” for a week, and not again used except in intrastate commerce for several weeks after the injury, could not recover of the master, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, sections 8657-8665]).
Summary
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. E. C. CROW. Action by Bert Loveless against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. The facts are, as gathered from the record: That appellant was injured by a piece of- metal striking him in the eye, while engaged in repairing the car in the shops of defendant at Boyles, Ala. The injury occurred on or about July 10, 1914. Movements of the car are shown, beginning on June 10, 1914, until July 2, 1914, between various points in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. After July 2, 1914, it was not put to any use, and on July 9th was put in the shop at Boyles where the repair was made, and for some time after the repair was made it was used in intrastate shipments, or was simply drifting and not. used for any purpose whatever. For several weeks after July 17, 1914, it was used in the Birmingham district, and between points in said district. On these facts the court directed a verdict for defendant; plaintiff having brought his action under the federal Employers’ Liability Act.

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

Opinion of the Court — Mayfield

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

This cause was submitted and considered under new rule 46, and the opinion of the court was prepared by Mr. Justice Mayfield.

*588 The complaint seeks recovery under the federal Employers’ Liability Act, but the proof fails to bring the case within the influence of said act, under the authority of Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Winters, 242 U. S. 353 , 37 Sup. Ct. 170, 61 L. Ed. —, and our own case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Carter, 195 Ala. 382 , 70 South. 655 . Hence the trial court did not err in giving the general charge for defendant.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Mayfield, Somerville, and Thomas, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Carter, 70 So. 655 (Ala. 1915) 17
Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353 (1917) 161

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