Summary
In Louisville and N. R. Co. v. Sunday, 254 Ala. 299, 48 So.2d 216, the witness, on cross-examination, testified to facts of which his knowledge was derived from the unsworn statements of others.
Summary of this case from Alabama Power Company v. BakerOpinion
3 Div. 542.
October 19, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Escambia County, F. W. Hare, J.
Steiner, Crum Weil, of Montgomery, and McMillan, Caffey McMillan, of Brewton, for appellant.
When plaintiff sues a railroad for injuries occurring on its tracks and relies upon simple negligence, it is incumbent upon him to allege in his complaint a relationship that would render the defendant liable for simple negligence; that is, that the injured party was not a trespasser. Southern R. Co. v. Bush, 122 Ala. 470, 26 So. 168; Southern R. Co. v. Forrister, 158 Ala. 477, 48 So. 69; Southern R. Co. v. Smith, 163 Ala. 374, 50 So. 390; Empire Coal Co. v. Martin, 190 Ala. 169, 67 So. 435. An allegation in a complaint that plaintiff's intestate was killed "at or near" a private crossing should be construed to mean that she was killed at a place on the track other than the crossing. Davis v. Chesapeake O. R. Co., 75 S.W. 275, 25 Ky.Law Rep. 342; Rush v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 223 Ala. 119, 134 So. 619; Birmingham Ry. Light Power Co. v. Nicholas, 181 Ala. 491, 61 So. 361; Woodward Iron Co. v. Thompson, 205 Ala. 490, 88 So. 438. A complaint should allege the name or names of the servants or agents of the railroad company who are alleged to have negligently caused the injury complained of, or it should allege that the names of such agents or servants are unknown. Southern R. Co. v. Cunningham, 112 Ala. 496, 20 So. 639. Where a decedent who has good senses of sight and hearing approaches an unobstructed railroad crossing in the daytime at a place familiar to her, and who from within a reasonable distance of the crossing might have seen whether a train was approaching and have avoided injury therefrom, nevertheless attempts to cross when a train was so close that the accident could not be averted, she was guilty of contributory negligence entitling the defendant railroad company to the affirmative charge. Louisville N. R. Co. v. Webb, 90 Ala. 185, 8 So. 518; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Turner, 192 Ala. 392, 68 So. 277; Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Jones, 202 Ala. 222, 80 So. 44; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Flowers, 241 Ala. 446, 3 So.2d 21; Hines v. Cooper, 205 Ala. 70, 88 So. 133; Seaboard Airline R. Co. v. Lowe, 223 Ala. 542, 137 So. 448. A person stepping from a path between two tracks immediately in front of an approaching engine is guilty of contributory negligence barring recovery. Sims v. Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co., 197 Ala. 151, 72 So. 328; Ball v. Semet-Solvay Co., 208 Ala. 648, 95 So. 50; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Foshee, 125 Ala. 199, 27 So. 1006. When it appears that a witness has given testimony on hearsay, such testimony should be excluded upon motion made to that end. Davis v. Arnold, 143 Ala. 228, 39 So. 141; Hardy v. Randall, 173 Ala. 516, 55 So. 997; Davis v. Smitherman, 209 Ala. 244, 96 So. 208; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 203, page 941. The purpose of the homicide statute is not compensatory but penal, and a verdict out of proportion to the degree of culpability of the respective parties is excessive.
H. C. Rankin, of Brewton, for appellee.
Allegation that the intestate was proceeding across tracks "at or near" a crossing is not objectionable. Complaint sufficiently shows intestate was not a trespasser. Birmingham E. B. R. Co. v. Wilson, 14 Ala. App. 235, 69 So. 312; Feore v. Trammel, 212 Ala. 325, 102 So. 529; Birmingham-Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Birmingham R. L. P. Co. v. McGinty, 158 Ala. 410, 48 So. 491; Covington Planter Co. v. Roberson, 239 Ala. 70, 194 So. 171; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Sunday, 248 Ala. 597, 28 So.2d 796; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 244 Ala. 485, 13 So.2d 277; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Martin, 240 Ala. 124, 198 So. 141. The complaint if not demurrable for failure to name defendant's servants or agents committing the act or to allege their identity was unknown to plaintiff. Southern R. Co. v. Hyde, 183 Ala. 346, 61 So. 77; Northern Ala. R. Co. v. McGough, 209 Ala. 435, 96 So. 569; Hall v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 211 Ala. 602, 100 So. 890; Graham v. Werfel, 229 Ala. 385, 157 So. 201; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brackin, 248 Ala. 459, 28 So.2d 193. The question of contributory negligence was one for the jury to determine. L. N. R. Co. v. Sunday, supra.
Count 1 alleges that on June 5, 1943, "the defendant, by and through its servants or agents, was operating a railroad steam engine over its railroad tracks in the town of Flomaton, Escambia County, Alabama, and then and there defendant's said servants or agents acting in the line and scope of their service and employment, so negligently operated said engine as to cause the same to run over, upon or against the plaintiff's intestate, Mary Ann Sunday, as she was lawfully proceeding on foot across said track at a populous business crossing a short distance westerly from the railroad depot of the defendant in said town, and plaintiff avers that as the proximate result of the aforesaid negligence her said intestate was killed practically instantly."
Count 2 is as follows: "Plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of Twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars damages for that, on to-wit, the 5th day of June, 1943, said defendant was engaged in the operation of a railroad in Escambia County, Alabama, operating thereon locomotives propelled by steam, and the agents or servants of the defendant while acting in the line and scope of their employment and who were then and there in charge or control of a steam locomotive of said defendant at said time and place, namely, on its tracks in the town of Flomaton, Alabama, so negligently operated said locomotive as to cause the same to run over, upon or against the plaintiff's intestate who was then and there lawfully proceeding on foot across the railroad track of the defendant at or near the Palafox Street crossing, and at a place and time where said track was so frequently used by the public as a passway or crossing by pedestrians that some one was likely to be in a position of danger there, which facts and circumstances were known to those in charge of the approaching locomotive of the defendant, and that the defendant's agents or servants in charge of said locomotive, in the line of their duties, at the time complained of, knowing of said use of said track by pedestrians as a passway or crossing at said time and place, negligently failed to keep a look out for persons situated as was this intestate at the time, and negligently ran said engine or locomotive in such reckless and dangerous manner, without giving an alarm of approaching danger such as blowing the whistle or ringing the bell, that it ran upon, over or against the body of the plaintiff's intestate, killing her; and, that the said fatality was the proximate result of the aforesaid negligence."
The following charge was refused to defendant: "7. The court charges the jury that a person stepping from a path between two railroad tracks immediately in front of an approaching engine upon one of said tracks is guilty of contributory negligence in failing to stop, look and listen before going on the track, or in going on it with full knowledge of the situation and thus taking her chances, and that if you believe from the evidence that the plaintiff's intestate did so step from a path between two tracks and immediately in front of an approaching engine, the plaintiff cannot recover in this case."
This action was originally filed by Century Sunday, as administrator of the estate of Mary Ann Sunday, deceased, under the wrongful death or homicide statute, § 123, Title 7, Code 1940, against the Louisville Nashville Railroad Company.
The amended complaint upon which the case was first submitted to the jury contained six counts. The first, third, and fourth ascribed the death of Mary Ann Sunday to the negligence of the agents or servants of defendant, acting within the line and scope of their employment. The second count charged willful and wanton conduct on the part of defendant's agents or servants or employees while acting within the line and scope of their employment. The fifth count charged corporate participation in the alleged negligent act. The sixth count ascribed the death to subsequent negligence.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, not guilty, to all of said counts and contributory negligence to the simple negligence counts.
There was verdict for plaintiff. From a judgment following the verdict, the defendant railroad company appealed to this court.
We reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause. Louisville N. R. Co. v. Sunday, 248 Ala. 597, 28 So.2d 796. The reversal was predicated on the holding that the defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge as to Counts 2, 5 and 6, and on the further holding that the trial court erred in defining wantonness in the oral charge. As to those counts in the complaint charging simple negligence, we held that "the question as to whether the defendant's agents or employees were guilty of negligence proximately causing the death of plaintiff's intestate was, under the evidence, for the jury as was the question of contributory negligence." 248 Ala. 601, 28 So.2d 798.
While the cause was pending in this court, Century Sunday died. After remandment, Mildred Sunday was issued letters of administration de bonis non on the estate of Mary Ann Sunday, deceased. It was ordered that the suit filed by Century Sunday, as administrator, survive, continue and proceed in the name of Mildred Sunday, as administratrix de bonis non of the estate of Mary Ann Sunday, deceased, as the substituted and succeeding party plaintiff.
After remandment, the complaint was amended so as to contain only two counts, both charging simple negligence.
Verdict was for the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000. Judgment was in accord with the verdict, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted by the defendant railroad company.
It is first insisted that the action of the trial court in overruling the demurrers of defendant necessitates a reversal.
In a complaint such as is under consideration here, it is not necessary to allege the names of the agents, servants or employees of defendant or that their names are unknown to the plaintiff. Shelby Iron Co. v. Morrow, 209 Ala. 116, 95 So. 370; Western Railway of Alabama v. Turner, 170 Ala. 643, 54 So. 527. Hence the demurrer taking that point was not well taken. The case of Southern Ry. Co. v. Cunningham, Adm'r, 112 Ala. 496, 20 So. 639, relied upon by appellant's counsel, is distinguished in Shelby Iron Co. v. Morrow, supra.
Demurrer of defendant challenged the complaint on the graund that for aught appearing plaintiff's intestate was a trespasser and, hence, the complaint shows no duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff's intestate, the breach of which would enable the plaintiff to recover for simple negligence.
In cases of this character, the complaint need not define the quo modo, or specify the particular acts of diligence omitted. Yet when simple negligence constitutes the cause of action, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to bring himself within the protection of the negligence averred by alleging such a relationship as would enable him to recover for initial negligence; that is, that he was not a trespasser, and where, construing a complaint most strongly against the pleader, it appears that the injured person was a trespasser at the time of the injury, the complaint is bad as against apt demurrer. Gadsden A. U. Ry. Co. v. Julian, Adm'r, 133 Ala. 371, 32 So. 135; Southern Ry. Co. v. Forrister, 158 Ala. 477, 48 So. 69; Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 163 Ala. 174, 50 So. 390; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Holland, 164 Ala. 73, 51 So. 365; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Blackmon, 169 Ala. 304, 53 So. 805; Birmingham Ry., Light Power Co. v. Fox, 174 Ala. 657, 56 So. 1013; Empire Coal Co. v. Martin, 190 Ala. 169, 67 So. 435; Rush v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 223 Ala. 119, 134 So. 619; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Rogers, 242 Ala. 448, 6 So.2d 874.
But the averments of both counts in this case show that plaintiff's intestate was not a trespasser at the time of her injury, in that it is alleged in both counts that she was injured while crossing defendant's railroad tracks at the place described. Since she was crossing the tracks at the time of her injury, at the place described, she was not a trespasser, even though such described crossing was not a public crossing. Louisville N. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 244 Ala. 485, 13 So.2d 877; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Johnson, 201 Ala. 611, 79 So. 43; Lloyd v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 200 Ala. 694, 77 So. 237; Birmingham Ry., Light Power Co. v. Jones, 153 Ala. 157, 45 So. 177. We express no opinion as to whether or not the crossing described in the counts of the complaint can be said to be a "public" crossing.
We point out that the evidence was without dispute that plaintiff's intestate was killed by one of defendant's trains at a public crossing in the town of Flomaton. This fact was known to defendant at time of trial. It made such admission in answer to interrogatories. Witnesses for defendant, as well as those for plaintiff, fixed the place of the accident at a public crossing. This was the theory upon which the case was tried. Charges given at the request of the defendant railroad company fixed the place of the accident at a public crossing in the town of Flomaton. So. even if there had been error in overruling the demurrer last considered, it would be error without injury under the rule of the following cases: Ridgely Operating Co. v. White, 227 Ala. 459, 150 So. 693; American Ry. Express Co. et al. v. Reid, 216 Ala. 479, 113 So. 507; Southern Ry. Co. v. Dickson, 211 Ala. 481, 100 So. 665; Birmingham Southern Ry. Co. v. Goodwyn, 202 Ala. 599, 81 So. 339; Best Park Amusement Co. v. Rollins, 192 Ala. 534, 68 So. 417.
It is earnestly insisted by counsel for appellant that the undisputed evidence shows that intestate was guilty of contributory negligence and that, therefore, the trial court erred to a reversal in refusing the general affirmative charge, with hypothesis, as requested by defendant.
The testimony on the second trial was in all material respects the same as that given on the first trial and which is set out in the opinion on former appeal. We have carefully considered the evidence and adhere to the conclusion reached on former appeal that the question as to whether defendant's agents or employees were guilty of negligence proximately causing the death of plaintiff's intestate was for the jury, as was the question of contributory negligence.
Defendant's charge No. 7 was refused without error. It was abstract, inasmuch as there is no evidence to the effect that deceased was walking in a path which paralleled the railroad tracks and from such path stepped in front of the engine, and the charge is subject to that construction. All of the evidence is to the effect that deceased was walking across the series of tracks at the time she was hit. Moreover, charge 5, given at the request of defendant, substantially and fairly covered the rule applicable to the facts of this case.
W. F. Booker, a witness for plaintiff, testified on direct examination that the only person he saw on the engine at the time of the accident was the engineer. He stated that he did not see a flagman, brakeman or anyone else on the front of the tender. On cross-examination the witness stated that at the time of the accident the fireman was at a hotel near the tracks, drinking coffee. On further cross-examination, it was developed that the witness did not know the fireman and that his statement that he saw him in the hotel was based on the statement of others. Counsel for defendant made no effort at that time to have such statement excluded on the ground that a witness cannot testify to facts as to which his knowledge is derived from unsworn statements of others. On re-direct examination, the witness repeated what he had said on cross-examination to the effect that he had seen the fireman in the hotel. At this point counsel for defendant moved to exclude such statement on the ground that it was based on what someone had told the witness. This motion was overruled. We think the motion came too late. Nunn Battery Co. v. Battery Mfg. Co., 239 Ala. 96, 194 So. 182.
We are not persuaded that we should disturb the amount of the verdict in this case, which was fixed by the jury and approved by the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
BROWN, FOSTER, and STAKELY, JJ., concur.