Citation Numbers: 8 Ala. App. 623, 62 So. 967
Judges: Walker
Filed Date: 6/3/1913
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/19/2022
— In the count of the compalint upon which the case went to the jury the injuries complained of were alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, while he was in .the discharge of his duties as an employee of the defendant, in consequence of the breaking loose of some coal ears which, by means of a cable or rope, were being hoisted out of a mine operated by the defendant; and the fact that the plaintiff was subjected to the injuries was attributed to a defect in
Written charges 5 and 7, requested by the defendant, were properly refused, as each of them required the rendition of a verdict in favor of the defendant if the jury found from the evidence that the break which occurred in a link of the chain which coupled the cars together was not due to the negligence of the defendant itself, though there was evidence tending to prove that the defect in the link arose from, or had not been discovered or remedied owing to, the negligence of some employee of the defendant who had been intrusted by it with the duty of seeing that the cable or chain was in proper condition. These charges ignored one of the issues in the case.
Substantially, if not identically, the same state of facts which, in written charge 4 refused to the defendant, was made the predicate for an instruction to the jury to return a verdict for the defendant was, in charges given at its instance, made the predicate for instructions to the effect that the jury could not find in favor of the plaintiff. Acting under these latter instructions, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. This imports a finding by them of the nonexistence of the state of facts hypothesized. So there is no room for any other conclusion in this connection
What has been said disposes of the only assignments of error which have been insisted on.
Affirmed.