The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-11
Head Notes of the Decisions
 of the ALabama Supreme Court
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. R co.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. R. co.
 vs. CHURCH.
 Damages for Injury to Passenger
 (Decided April Is 190s--46 South.
 457.)
 The gravamen of the action being the non -feasance or mtsfeasance or another, a complaint averring the facts out of which the duty to act spring and that defendant negligently failed to perform such duties, Is, as a gener- al rule, sufficient, and 1t Is not neces- sary to specify the particular act oI diligence which defendant should nave employed in the performance oA s"Ni' duties
 2. Carriers; injury 70 passenger; comnlaint-A complaint alleging thai while complainant was passenger and was being carried by defenoanss : as such on a train of cars, her nanu was caught in the car between table, or other hard substance, and the ! u If inc car. and was injured, and that inc injuries were the proximate re- s,,it of the negligence of defendant III and about carrying plaintiH as pas senger, sufficiently changes the neshs- ence of defendant
 2. Same; liability of carrier; injury ,n slAeDine car-where the sleeping gar was a part of defendants train defendant cannot escape liability TOT injuries inflicted on a passenger on the ground that such injuries were sus- fafned in a sleeping car owned oy an other company, although such com pany furnished its own agent. gnu '.e .e messenger paid ca additional rare to the sleeping C=r company ior 1he PiA' ilege of riding therein
 4 Negltgence of porter on sIeeplhS car-A railroad company is liable TOT any neglect of duty of porter oi a sleeping car which Is part or l's train, for injuries diligently dohe senRer having a ticket for transporta- tion and a Pull.-.an ticket.
 Same: presumption - where ,ortar is employed by the Pullman Gar Company and is assigned oy sucn company to the, control of the interior of the sleeping car in wnlcn Passen. ger is riding the law will presume tna' the norter exercised such control wltn the assent of the railroad In "hose train the sleeping car is. ~ A
 Same: instructions-In the ap- .ar,ce of evidence to show that the DOT fer of a sleeping car was not tne set ant of the .ailroad company ana WhsI tal 5 ne might have been the servant ol nS snJ ~sttroad company, or employed anu a@s-,trolIed Jointly by 1t and the Fui-
 an Car Company, a charge assertins .L-t tha iury could not find the rali- ~asd company's agents were gulity oL anv negligence proximateiy csusiis' ths injury. was properly refused.
 same; misleading instructlohs, charge asserting that if the Jury oe- s1ayad that the 1le fell because or an n nnforseen accident, and one that couIu not have been anticipated by reason abie care and foresight on the part or inc railroad company or the PnIiman ,l n Con,nany. the jury must find Tor the raiIroad company. is calculated 10 ms lead fine fury to believe that they could not find for the plaintiff unless the accident was foreseen or anticipated oy fhe railroad company of the Pullman Company, regardless of the acts or ornissIons of their servant
 8. Same; instructions; Gegree or care required A railroad company owes to it's passengers the duty to ex- ercise the highest degree of care, skill, and diligence kBbwn to skillful and diligent persons in that business.
 9. New trial; grounds; newly dis covered evidence; diligence-Where plaintiff gave the name of the phy- stefan who treated her, in her answers to interrogatories propounded before the trial, and also in her testimony al the trial, and it appeared that the phy- sician could have been located by de- fendant before the trial, and defend