The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-08-30

the lntentfonal 1nnlctlou oI tne lnJury
 by the engineer. t7
 3. Same: same.--In such . case, .
 count of the complaint which ayers that
 the plaintiff by reason of the wanton,
 reckless, willfui. gross. ~rongfQl or intentional negligence on fhe p4rt of said engineer, he (plainti6) has spt : fered the wrongs and injufiess con, : plained of. is subject to demurrer. fr that there is joined in said counts { charge for simple negligence and one for wantonness and willful injury. {. willful injury; contributory negii- gence no defense.-In an action by an
 employe against an employer to re-
 cover damages for personal injuries
 alleged to have been caused by the wantonness of the defendant or its ern- ployes or by willful or intentional wrong on the part of the defendant or it's employees contributory negligence constitutes no defense; and pleas set ting up contributory negligence as a defense to such action are subject to demurrer.
 5. Action against railroad company by employe for negligence; charge of court to jury.-In an action by an em ploye against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries. alleged to have been inflicted by the wanton, willful or intentional negli- gence on the part of the defendant, a charge properly defines the negligence complained of and is properly given
 at the request of the plaintiff. which
 instructs the jury that "Ail that is
 meant in this case by wanton. willful
 or intentional negligence is the cor
 scious failure on the part of the en gineer to use reasonable care to avoid
 the injury after discovering the dan.
 ger of the plaintiff, if the jury find from the evidence there was such d
 failure, and the injury resulted there . from, then they should find in favor of
 the plaintiff"
 6. Same: same.-In such a case. a charge Is free from error and properly given at the request of the plaintiff.
 which instructs the jury that An in = tent to inJure on the part of the de- fendant's employees Is not essential to a liability. notwithstanding contributory negligence; 1t is enough If they exhibit such wantonness and recklessness as to probable consequences as implies a
 willingness to inflict or an indifference as to whether injury inflicted there from"
 z. Same; same-In such a case, where there was evidence tending to show,
 that the plaintiff. in order to avoid
 being run over by the engine, stepped upon the pilot of the engine and was injured by having fallen therefroin
 while tn, engine was in motion, and
 that the engineer saw the plaintiff step
 upon the pilot and knew that in such
 position he was in great danger, a
 charge Is erroneous which instructs the
 jury that if they believe that "the
 engineer saw the plaintiff step on the
 pilot and should further find that plain
 tiff was in great danger at the time, and that the engineer knew he was In great danger. and he failed to use ap pliances at his hands to stop the train,
 then they should find in favor of the
 plaintiff" such charge failing to pos tulate wrongful or willful conduct on the part of the engineer in not stop ping the train.
 z. Same; same.-In such case, a charge is erroneous and properly re- fused which instructs the jury that Tt was not the duty of the engineer to be on the lookout for plaintiff on the track of the defendant under the evidence in this case, and if you believe from the
 evidence that plaintiffs injuries and damage resulted as a consequence of defendants engineer failing to be on
 the lookout, you can not find for the plaintiff" such charge ignoring the ! | tablish, that the plaintiff was. at the | time. in very great danger and that the | engineer saw him on the pilot and knew
 that he was in a position of great | peril.
 s.-same; same.-In such a case, a | charge is erroneous and properly refus ed which instructs the jury that If you believe from the evidence that the en- gineer of defendant saw plaintiff at | tempt to step on the pilot of the engine
 and then did not see him again until
 after the accident happened, you musr | find for the defendant"
 | 10 Same; same-In such a case, a | charge is erroneous and properly re | fused which instructs the jury that "in
 this case you must find for the defent-
 ant unless you are reasonably satisfied from all the evidence that defendants | engineer actually saw plaintiff after
 the time he stepped on the pilot of the
 engine and before his leg was run | over"
 Reversed and remanded
 Opinion by Haralson, J.