The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-05-03
Head Notes Of the Decisions
of the Alabama Supreme Court

I i !. y L -
sIOSs-SHErFfELD STEEL q IRON
- co. v. SALSER.
Damages for Personal Injury--tDecid-
ed January Is. 1905 south
/. Pleadings; consistency of aver.
ment--A count is not Inconsistent ano
reppgnant. nor does 1t contain alter
nate averments. when it's allegations
are that plaintiff was employed IN
railroad work near defendants quarry;
that in blasting. defendant used pow
erful explosive, and that. rock thrown
thereby was liable to seriously injurs
persons struck: that defendant knew
or by reason OF care could have known
that plaintiff or men working Win
him. were near enough to be injured
by the blasting rock: that while en-
gagged in his work plaintiff was struck
on the head by rock thrown upon
him by defendants operation. and that
his injuries were proximately caused
by the defendant negligently using ua
explosives. or by negligentiy faiine
to give plaintiff and the men working
under him notice that q blast was to
be set on so as to enable plaintiff to
escape danger arising therefrom. The
expression In the count that the de-
PENDANT negiisently failed to give
pladntiff and the men working under
of, so as. to enable him to escape, etc.,
renders the count not demurrable for
insufficiency for failing to allege that
the defendant knew OF by reasonable
care could have known Of piaintins
presence.
q, Explosives: personal injury; al
legations Of complafnt--A count con-
tanning the allegations above set out
is not 'demurrable for failure to charge
on4t IL np. fnr fafftnQ
to charge that defendants employees
were acting within the scope Of their
employment, but shows violation OF
duty by defendant to plaintiff. and act
ionable negligence.
8. Damages; personal injury; evil
dence-Where 1t appeared that plain
tiff went to defendants regular ply
stefan and had his wound dressed, ana
It further appeared that It was the
duty of the physician to look after
such patient, that he did not consider
the wound serious. and gave plaintin
no instructions about coming again,
1t was incompetent for the physician
to state whether, judging from the
wound as II first appeared when plain
tiff came to see him. II could have
been entirely cured 1t plaintiff had had
1t treated.
4. Explosives; blasting; injuries;
lid DAaHtih8 OHS - AANoASs
throwing rock upon the lands of an
other. whether negligentIy done or not.
as 1t constitutes a trespass and where
the work has been done negligently,
attaches for personal injury.
S. Same; blasting; duties-Persons
using blasts should protect persons ex-
posed to danger by covering the blast.
or II that cannot be done at reason
able expense, by warning such person.
- L. To- Nv hu 20
diligence can become known that in
jury will probably result from the
blasting.
8. Same; injury; Jury question
Under the evidence in this case 1t was
a question properly submitted to the
jury to determine whether the blast
ing was done negligently.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
Heard before Hon. A. o. Lane.
Affirmed. Opinion by Simpson. J.
Anderson. benson. and Mcclellan.
PoLYTINsKY v. STEWART.
Assumpsit--(D decided June Is. 1905
Rehearing denied. February &.
1908 South. 3s5.l
]. Account. action on; evidence: YER
lfied account--Whether an account was
SO itemized as TO be Approving under
9CStASh 4oNNs ScAS 4oSos ~ Woo 69AAAA0-
sible where 1t was shown by the tes-
that the items composing 1t
were taken from a statement given
witness by defendants book-keeper at
request; and the fact that
the witness changed the account after
It was first verified did not affect the
of the account, although
It may have affected the credibility OF
the witness.
2. Same--Because plaintiff could
not swear 70 the credits on an account.
that did not render 1t inaamissible to
show the debts, andN the defendant
could not complain that plaintiff did
not swear to credits Voluntarily allow
ed him.
3. Same; verified account; proof of
simple account-Proof may be intro.
duced in support of an actien based on
a verified account, Just as IL the act
Ion was on simple account.
I. Same: verified account-The ac-
count in this case examined and held
to be not SO itemized and verified as
to be self-proving under Section 1904.
Code 1896.
Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court.
Heard before Hon. D. w. Spea.ke.
Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
Anderson. J.
Tyson. C. j.. DowdeIl and Simpson.
]. j., concur.