Johnson v. Louisville N. R. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. McMoy

    73 So. 2d 85 (Ala. 1954)   Cited 18 times

    Under plain provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., the gist of the action is negligence on the part of defendant which proximately caused the injury complained of. No material phase of plaintiff's claim can rest on conjecture or supposition that there might have been negligence; but plaintiff is required to present probative facts from which the negligence and the causal relation between that negligence and the injury complained of can be reasonably inferred before such issues or phases may be submitted to the jury. Alabama Great So. R. Co. v. Davis, 246 Ala. 64, 18 So.2d 737; Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 251 Ala. 27, 36 So.2d 102; Id., 336 U.S. 207, 69 S.Ct. 507, 93 L.Ed. 618; Galloway v. U.S., 319 U.S. 372, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 87 L.Ed. 1458; Johnson v. Louisville N. R. Co., 255 Ala. 581, 52 So.2d 196; Echenrode v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 164 F.2d 996; Id., 335 U.S. 329, 69 S.Ct. 91, 93 L.Ed. 41; Brady v. Southern R. Co., 320 U.S. 476, 64 S.Ct. 232, 88 L.Ed 239; McGivern v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 213. A reasonable safety rule promulgated by the employer to promote the safety of the employee is binding upon him and he may not recover for injuries consequent upon his violation of it. Where the employee seeks to avoid the binding quality of such a rule because of asserted customary violation, his evidence must show that habitual violation of the rule by the employees affected had been so persistent, flagrant and long-continued to the actual knowledge of officers or superior employees authorized to bind the employer by acquiescence in its abrogation, as to make evident an assent on the part of the employer to non-observance of the rule by the employees. McWilliams v. Birmingham Southern R. Co., 204 Ala. 53, 85 So. 293; Yoakum v. Lusk, Mo.Sup., 223 S.W. 53; Ottley v

  2. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Taylor

    71 So. 2d 27 (Ala. 1954)   Cited 7 times

    Under the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., the gist of the action is negligence on the part of defendant which proximately caused the injury complained of. No material phase of the plaintiff's claim can rest on a conjecture or a supposition that there might have been negligence; but plaintiff is required to present probative facts from which the negligence and the causal relation between that negligence and the injury complained of can be reasonably inferred before such issues or phases may be submitted to the jury. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Davis, 246 Ala. 64, 18 So.2d 737; Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 251 Ala. 27, 36 So.2d 102; Id., 336 U.S. 207, 69 S.Ct. 507, 93 L.Ed. 618; Galloway v. U.S., 319 U.S. 372, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 87 L.Ed. 1458; Johnson v. Louisville N. R., 255 Ala. 581, 52 So.2d 196; Eckenrode v. Penn. R. Co., 164 F.2d 996; Id., 335 U.S. 329, 69 S.Ct. 91, 93 L.Ed. 41; Brady v. So. R. Co., 320 U.S. 476, 64 S.Ct. 232, 88 L.Ed. 239. Where opinion evidence is sought to be obtained from a purported expert on a material issue in response to a hypothetical question, it is error for the trial Court to permit a hypothetical question which assumes elements of fact not shown by the evidence. So. R. Co. v. Simmons, 237 Ala. 246, 186 So. 566; Knowlton v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 192 Ala. 456, 68 So. 281.

  3. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Winn

    66 So. 2d 184 (Ala. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    In actions under the Federal Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51, there must be some substantial evidence, more than a scintilla, not only that the employer was negligent, but also that such negligence proximately caused, in whole or in part the injuries complained of. Mere conjecture will not be allowed to do duty for probative facts in this regard. Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 251 Ala. 27, 36 So.2d 102; Id., 336 U.S. 207, 69 S.Ct. 507, 93 L.Ed. 618; Fore v. Southern R. Co., 4 Cir., 178 F.2d 349; Alabama Great So. R. Co. v. Davis, 246 Ala. 64, 18 So.2d 737; Detroit T. I. R. Co. v. Banning, 6 Cir., 173 F.2d 752; McGivern v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 213; Johnson v. Louisville N. R. Co., 255 Ala. 581, 52 So.2d 196; Raudenbush v. Baltimore O. R. Co., 3 Cir., 160 F.2d 363; Wolfe v. Henwood, 8 Cir., 162 F.2d 998. Hewlett, Dennis, Bowden Barton, Atlanta, Ga., and Jackson, Rives, Pettus Peterson, Birmingham, for appellee.