The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-12-31
SUPREME COURT
 DECISIONS

HAM RAIlAtOAD CO., V. fl4lPRO.
 Action against Railroad Company by an
 Employe to Recover Damages for Pe-- sonal lnjuries.-Appeal from the Law
 and Equity Court of Walker l. Negligence of railroad company; re- suits from violation of statute.-The vio- latfon of its road and trains, constitutes an act of negligence for which a liability becomes fixed upon the company or when injury to a person results as a proximate consequence of such negligence. ?. Action against railroad company for negligence caused by violation of statute; sufficiency of complaint.-In an action by an employe against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while engaged in his duties as brakemen, where tho negligence complained of was the Vioia- tion of a statute it is not necessary for the complaint to set out specially said statute and aver its violation, but it is sufficient if the complaint ayers a state of facts which show a failure on the part of the railroad company to comply with the requirements of the statute
 5. Same: same.-In such a case, a count of the complaint is sufficient that ayers that on the day of the injury the defend- ant hauled On its line "a car used in moving interstate traffic that was not equipped with couplings coupling auto matically by impact, and that plaintiff, while engaged in making the coupling with said car, it was his duty to do, had his hand badly mangled and bruised" etc., and that plaintiffs injuries "weIe caused by reason of the defendant using said car which could not be automatically coupled by impact
 4. Action for negligence; averments of oomplaint.-In an action to recover dam ages for personal injuries. alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the de- fendant. a complaint sufficiently states a cause of action which contains every gem eral averment, little short of mere con- clusions. of a want of care and conse- quent injury, without stating in detail the facts which constitute the negligence complained of.
 5. Action against railroad company for negligence in violating act of Congress; sufilciency of plea.-In an action by an employe against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries, where the complaint alleges that the in- jury was caused by the failure of the de- fendant to comply with the requirements of an act of Congress by which railroads engaged fin interstate commerce were re- quired to couple their cars with auto matic couplers. plea which sets up as a defense to such action the assumption of a risk by the plaintiff, presents no de- fense and Is subject to demurrer.
 6. Contribu;ory negligence; sufflcienCy of pleas.-Pleas seeking to set up con- tributory negligence. are insufficient and subject to demurrer.
 :. Action against railroad company for negligence in violating act of Congress; when general affirmative charge for de- fendant properly refused. In an action by an employe against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries, where the complaint charges the defend ant with negligence in failing to observe the requirements of an act of Congress providing that railroads engaged in in- terstate commerce should use automatic couplers, where the evidence introduced is conflicting as to whether the car that was being coupled was engaged in ln- terstate commerce at the time of the acci- | dent, the question as to whether such car | was so engaged in interstate commerce, is one for the determination of the jury; | and the general affirmative charge re- quested by the defendant Is properly re- | fused.
 8. Action for negligence; contributory when question for the jury.- In an action by brakeman against a railroad to recover damages for injuries sustained while attempting to couple cars on the defendants road, where some of the counts of the complaint charge that the draw-head of the car attempted to be coupled by the plaintiff was defective, and there was evidence on the part of the plaintiff. though not altogether clear and satisfactory, that the draw-head of the car was defective, and the evidence as to whether the defective draw-head was solely the cause of the injury. or that | the contributory negligence of the plaint- fir pleaded by the defendant proximately to the injury. was not solely | free from conflict, the question of the right of recovery is one for, the determl- nation of the jury; and the general af- charge requested by the defend ant is properly refused.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by DoWdeIl J.