Ross v. Becklenberg, 209 Ill. App. 144; Brennan v. Keene, 237 Mass. 556, 130 N.E. 82, 13 A.L.R. 629. Defendant was under no duty to guard against or warn plaintiff of an obvious danger. Connors-Weyman Co. v. Kilgore, 189 Ala. 643, 66 So. 609; Wilbourn v. Charleston Coop. Co., 127 Miss. 290, 90 So. 9; Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Holland v. T. C. I. R. Co., 91 Ala. 444, 8 So. 524, 12 L.R.A. 232. Plaintiff assumed the risk of such injury. Boyd v. Indian Head Mills, 131 Ala. 356, 31 So. 80; Gainer v. Southern R. Co., 152 Ala. 186, 44 So. 652. He was guilty of contributory negligence. Kyker v. Hitt, 189 Ala. 652, 66 So. 632; Kilby Frog Switch Co. v. Jackson, 175 Ala. 125, 57 So. 691. The court should, in reversing, grant a motion non obstante veredicto.
"* * * In contributory negligence, the essentials are that the party, against whom the plea is interposed, not only (1) had knowledge of the condition or failure, yet (2) appreciated the danger under the surrounding conditions and circumstances and did not (3) exercise reasonable care in the premises, but with such knowledge and appreciation put himself into the way of danger. Morgan v. Mobile O. R. Co., 202 Ala. 461, 80 So. 845; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Naugher, 203 Ala. 557, 560, 84 So. 262; Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Labatt's Master and Servant, § 332. * * * * * * * * *
The plea of contributory negligence was not subject to the demurrer. One having the capacity to exercise ordinary care for his own safety is required to do so. 65 C. J.S., Negligence, § 118, p. 711; 43 C.J. 1087; Birmingham Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Ala. Co. v. Sanders, 202 Ala. 295, 80 So. 360; Richmond D. R. Co. v. Farmer, 97 Ala. 141, 12 So. 86; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Thornton, 117 Ala. 274, 23 So. 778; Birmingham Elec. Co. v. Jones, 234 Ala. 590, 176 So. 203; Cook v. Central Railroad Banking Co., 67 Ala. 533; Mackintosh v. Wells, 218 Ala. 260, 118 So. 276; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Naugher, 203 Ala. 557, 84 So. 262; Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Labott, Master Servant, 332. McMillan, Caffey McMillan, Brewton, for appellee.
A nonsuit taken because of adverse rulings on pleadings does not present for review all of the rulings theretofore made by the court on the pleadings, but only that ruling or those rulings going to the right of the plaintiff to proceed in his effort for recovery, and where the plaintiff amends his complaint, after sustaining of demurrer, so as to conform to the ruling, such action cannot be reviewed when nonsuit is taken because of adverse ruling on demurrer to a plea. Code 1940 Tit. 7, § 819; Brown v. Ashworth, 237 Ala. 160, 185 So. 754; Schillinger v. Wickersham, 199 Ala. 612, 75 So. 11. A plea interposing the defense of volenti non fit injuria or that negligence of the plaintiff caused his injury, is not subject to demurrer even as against a count claiming wantonness, as this defense goes to the proximate cause of the injury. Robinson Mining Co. v. Swiney, 206 Ala. 617, 91 So. 476; Slayton v. Noonan, 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 793; Barger v. Oswolt, 239 Ala. 289, 194 So. 884; Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Southern R. Co. v. Edwards, 5 Cir., 44 F.2d 526; Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. Lee, 92 Ala. 262, 9 So. 230; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Flinn, 199 Ala. 177, 74 So. 246; Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Reid, 191 Ala. 628, 68 So. 136; Davis v. Miller, 109 Ala. 589, 19 So. 699; Kilby Frog Switch Co. v. Jackson, 175 Ala. 125, 57 So. 691. Where the plaintiff undertakes to state the facts of the quo modo of alleged wanton injury to him by the defendant, such facts must, as a matter of law, support wantonness. Jackson v. Vaughn, 204 Ala. 543, 86 So. 469; Gandy v. Copeland, 204 Ala. 366, 86 So. 3; Southern R. Co. v. Weatherlow, 153 Ala. 171, 44 So. 1019; Gentry v. Swann Chemical Co., 234 Ala. 313, 174 So. 530; Jones v. Keith, 223 Ala. 36, 37, 134 So. 630; Knight v. Tombigbee Valley R. Co., 190 Ala. 140, 67 So. 238; Birmingham R., L. P. Co. v. Drennen, 175 Ala. 338, 57 So. 876; Birmingham R., L. P. Co. v. Brown, 150 Ala. 327, 329, 43 So. 342. A court may attempt, insufficiently, to claim
This is usually a question for the jury. — Birmingham Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Alabama Co. v. Sanders, 202 Ala. 295, 297, 80 So. 360; Richmond Danville Ry. Co. v. Farmer, 97 Ala. 141, 12 So. 86; Louisville Nashville R. R. Co. v. Thornton, 117 Ala. 274, 282, 23 So. 778; Cook v. Central R. R. Banking Co., 67 Ala. 533; Mackintosh Co. v. Wells, 218 Ala. 260, 118 So. 276; Morgan v. M. O. R. Co., 202 Ala. 461, 80 So. 845; Louisville Nashville R. R. Co. v. Naugher, 203 Ala. 557, 560, 84 So. 262; Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Labatt's Master and Servant, § 332."
In such case it is a question of proximate cause. Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Roberts v. Pell City Mfg. Co., 197. Ala. 106, 72 So. 341; Southern Ry. Co. v. Chestnutt, 210 Ala. 282, 97 So. 905; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Morrill, 211 Ala. 39, 99 So. 297; International Harvester Co. et al. v. Elgin Williams, Sr., 222 Ala. 595, 133 So. 275. Defendant was due the affirmative charge.
The question of the master's negligence in respect to covering or guarding machinery in general, and such as we have in this case, is generally a question for the jury. 39 C.J., page 1151; Jones v. Ripley State Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Harrod v. Stout-Greer Lbr. Co., 113 S.W. 39; Finckle v. Bolton Lbr. Co., 132 N.Y.S. 1038; Krueck v. Phoenix Chair Co., 157 Wis. 266, 147 N.W. 41; Kerling v. G.W. Van Dusen Co., 121 N.W. 227; Cotton Mill Products Co. v. Oliver, 121 So. 111; Hardy v. Turner Co., 101 So. 489; Cecil Lbr. Co. v. McLeod, 122 Miss. 767, 85 So. 78. It is, of course, fundamental that all instructions must be read together and that the same constitute a single charge to the jury.
This is usually a question for the jury. Birmingham Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Alabama Co. v. Sanders, 202 Ala. 295, 297, 80 So. 360; Richmond Danville Ry. Co. v. Farmer, 97 Ala. 141, 12 So. 86; Louisville N. R. R. Co. v. Thornton, 117 Ala. 274, 282, 23 So. 778; Cook v. Central R. R. Banking Co., 67 Ala. 533; Mackintosh Co. v. Wells, 218 Ala. 260, 118 So. 276; Morgan v. M. O. R. Co., 202 Ala. 461, 80 So. 845; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Naugher, 203 Ala. 557, 560, 84 So. 262; Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Labatt's Master and Servant, § 332. A careful study of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the exact position of the car when plaintiff realized it was not going to stop was a jury question.
" 'If an injury has resulted in consequence of a certain wrongful act or omission, but only through or by means of some intervening cause, from which last cause the injury followed as a direct and immediate consequence, the law will refer the damage to the last proximate cause, and refuse to trace it to that which was more remote.' Louisville N. R. R. Co. v. Quick, 125 Ala. 553, 561, 562, 28 So. 14; Stanton v. Louisville N. R. R. Co., 91 Ala. 382, 386, 387, 8 So. 798; Louisville N. R. R. Co. v. Kelsey, 89 Ala. 287, 289, 290, 7 So. 648; Western Ry. of Alabama v. Mutch, 97 Ala. 194, 11 So. 894, 21 L.R.A. 316, 38 Am.St.Rep. 179; Thompson v. Louisville N. R. R. Co., 91 Ala. 496, 500, 8 So. 406, 11 L. R.A. 146." Alabama G. S. R. R. Co. v. Vail, 142 Ala. 134, 141, 38 So. 124, 126, 110 Am.St.Rep. 23; Ritch v. Kilby Frog Switch Co., 164 Ala. 131, 138, 51 So. 377; Birmingham Railway, Light Power Co. v. Ely, 183 Ala. 382, 397, 62 So. 816; Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20. Southern Ry. Co. v. De Latour, Inc., 223 Ala. 245, 135 So. 187, was a suit by the consignee against the transportation company, involving damages to a shipment of turkeys.
The question of the master's negligence in respect to covering or guarding machinery in general, or specifically such machinery as saws — is generally a question for the jury. 39 Corpus Juris, page 1151; Jones v. Ripley Stave Co., 203 Ala. 60, 82 So. 20; Harrod v. Stout-Greer Lumber Co., 113 S.W. 39; Finckle v. Bolton Landing Lumber Co., 132 N.Y.S. 1038; Krueck v. Phoenix Chair Co., 157 Wis. 266, 147 N.W. 41; Kerling v. G.W. Van Dusen Co., 121 N.W. 227; Cotton Mill Products Co. v. Oliver, 121 So. 111. There is no error in submitting to the jury the question of negligence of an employer who had failed to cover or guard certain revolving gears or cog wheels.