Case ID: ala_188/html/0348-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      de GRAFFENRIED, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Scisson.
    
      Injury to Passenger.
    
    (Decided June 18, 1914
    Rehearing denied July 25, 1914.
    66 South. 2.)
    
      Carriers; Duty to Passengers; Degree of Care. — The carrier owes to its passengers the duty to exercise the highest degree of care, skill and diligence known to very careful, skillful and diligent persons engaged in a like business, consistent with the practical operation of the business.
    Appeal from Birmingham City Court.
    Heard before Hon. John H. Miller.
    Action by Belle Scisson against the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company, for damages for injuries sustained Avhile a passenger on one of. its cars. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, and Brenton K. Fisk, for appellant.
    For brief and insistence, see case of B. R. L. & P. Go.-v. Lena Scisson, 186 Ala. 70, 65 South. 332.
    Harsh, Beddoav & Fitts, and McQueen & Ellis,.for appellee.
    For brief and insistence see B. R. L. & P. Go. v. Lena Scisson, 186 Ala. 70, 65 South. 332.
   de GRAFFENRIED, J.

In this case the court, at the Avritten request of the plaintiff, charged the jury that: “A common carrier of passengers, by street car, owes to its passengers the duty to exercise the highest degree of care, skill, and diligence known to very careful, skillful diligent persons engaged in like business, consistent Avith the practical operation of the business.”

This charge correctly states the laiv.—Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. Robinson, 183 Ala. 265, 62 South. 813.

2. The other questions presented by this record Avere determined adversely to appellant in the case of Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Lena E. Scisson, 186 Ala. 70, 65 South. 332.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and McClellan and Sayre, JJ., concur.