The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-30
Head Notes Qf the Decisions
 of Alabama Supreme Court

nrpa6rNeHAM RAILWAY, LIGHT &
 POWER COMPANY vs. CLARK. Aotien for Damages for Personal In
 jury (Deeided June !, isoe.'
 So Rep. s7el
 1. Street railroads; ccllision Wt.n vehicle; personal injury: complaint.--in nr action for injuries to intestate .,rnuing out of a collision between Strest car of defendant and buggy or nIafntifrs tntestate. an allegation m <ha eornpIaint that the intestate was x, . vahirie on a public street on which Aasendant's cars were being operated. near the intersection of another street eufGiciently alleges the relation or the parties from which duty to exercise care could be inferred
 q same: travellers on highway: care reouired.--The duty Is on the operator Of street cars to keep their cars under rnasonabie control and to keep diI- fwant lookout for persons who may 20 on the tracks in the street, and upon discovery of person in danser of be- ing run upon to use reasonable oiti- gence to avoid injuring him.
 2 Same; same: last clear chance.- Where the driver of vehicle nad driven negIigently within the gone or danger. if the notorman realizes nis 6anrer and falls diligently to do all he reasouably can to avoid collision and d collision occurs in which me driver of the vehicle is killed. The driv- CTS negligence would not be the prox. irnate cause of his Injury and would fnterpose no defense to the negligence Of inc rnotormAn.
 {. aAYne: duty of rnotcrraai ~--W VI nil . the nnotorman of street car iS entltled to presume that a person traVeing on a street will remain on the part uf the etreet not occupied by he tracks or the railroad. until he shows an at tempt to cross by his actions. f the AraveIer. without looking to see wheth- CT tha car is approaching turns across inc track 50 suddenly that 1t is not possible to check the car in time to avoid the accident. and Injury results, the driver's negligence proximetely contributed to the injury, and the de- Kendant is not liable.
 s. Appeal: pleading: harmless er- TOT --Any error on a ruling on demur~ Ter so count in the complaint on which an affirmative charge Is given for defendant, was harmless error
 a Trial; request tu charge.--It Is the duty of a party. if he desires any further explanation as to the facts, to request explanatory charges of an instruction correctly given on 6 mate rial issue.
 i. same: instructions given.---An in- strucsion to the jury that motorman was entitled to presume that tntestate would remain on the right side of the street until he gave some outward in- dication that he was going to cross the left hand side, was a corerct statement of the law and the courts refusal to give IL waa not cured by the courts giving an instruction that motornian was not required 10 anticipate that in- testats would turn his vehicle before he actually attempted to do sos and IT, alter he made such attempt and got on the track the vehicle was so close tn inc car. that it could not have been stopped by tne motorman using all means st hand to prevent the Injury, and proper signals were given as the car approached the interesting avenue. the jury should tlnd for the defendant.
 sRahearing denied June 30, l90o
 Appeal from Birmingham City Court.
 Heard bekore Hon. c. w. Ferguson.
 Reversed and renanded. Opinion by Eimpsons ,.
 Wsakiey. c. J.. Tyson and Anderson. JJ.. concur.