Court Opinion

ID: 9825587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:26:57.323227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:02.596929
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The case has again been carefully considered on rehearing. While usage at the moment of the accident is a material and determinative question of fact in declaring liability vel non, still general usage before the time of the injury is admissible in evidence to show the fact, and the knowledge thereof, that human beings, in all reasonable probability, would be exposed to peril on the track at the place and time of the accident and injury.' In L. & N. R. Co. v. Heidtmueller, 206 Ala. 29, 89 So. 191, it was held that exceptional and extraordinary use of the track at materially different times of day from 'that when the injury was inflicted was not sufficient to establish the usage or custom so as to subject to liability for wanton*201ness; that is to say','evidence of occasions’ of use that are not likely or reasonably probable to recur at the time of the accident is not .sufficient. This is illustrated in the Heidtmueller Case, supra, as the daily convening or closing of school at a regular hour materially different from the hour of the Heidtmueller homicide was not sufficient to establish a custom at the time of the homicide. The court there said:
“While we treat this case upon the assumption that this child was killed by train No. 2, and while using its track as a walk or passageway, we do not wish to he understood to hold that the evidence is sufficient to reasonably establish the fact that the child was killed while using the track in the ordinary way, on which the plaintiff relies to establish such a general and customary use as to charge this defendant with wantonness on the part of its agents or servants. Southern R. R. Co. v. Stewart, supra [179 Ala. 304], and cases therein cited.”
Appellant invokes consideration of special rulings and exceptions. They may be illusstrated by the assignments of error numbered 127 and 129. The question, “Well, did they ever use the railroad tracks in going to and from the river up to the time this boy was killed,” and answer, “Yes, sir; I have seen a good many of them come in and walk down to the bridge end and see the river. Especially when the water is high' numbers of them go down to see the river,” went to the custom or use at the place at and before the time of the homicide. It is true that the latter phrase of the answer of the witness, “Especially when the water is high numbers of them go down to see the river,” might have been excluded on specific motion, separating it from the first part of the answer. Such motion was not made.
Assignment of error referred to in brief as No. 122 is predicated on the question, “Do you know whether or not automobiles traveled up there before that,” .and answer, “Yes, sir; I have seen automobiles cross over there in a skiff before the time the boy was killed.” This question must be interpreted or illustrated by the previous questions and answers tending to show the previous and existing usage and custom at the place and at the time in question. The witness had been permitted to testify that he' had seen negroes who lived on “this side of the river go across the river in skiffs and get up on the railroad at the bridge and come up to Epes”; that there was not at that time an automobile road on the Greene county side up to the skiff landing; that, at the time of the trial, “they are working on the roads now, putting a ferry in down below” (there was. no objection to this last statement); and the witness was then asked, “Do you know whether or not automobiles traveled up there before that?” (meaning the time of the accident), and replied, “Yes, sir; I have seen automobiles cross over there in a skiff before the time the boy was killed.” Counsel for plaintiff then stated he was inquiring then “up to the time this boy was killed and not afterwards,” and asked the witness, “would or not the people who were tributary to Epes * * * that traded there, brought cotton * * *. — were there any people of that sort that would habitually visit Epes up to the time this boy was killed?” The witness answered, “Yes, I have seen a few visit Epes.” He was then asked, “Well, many or few that would trade in Epes came there and sold their cotton and other things?” and answered, “Well, I have seen hundreds; I reckon thousands of them.” Thereupon the witness was asked the question adverted to at the outset, “Well, did they ever use the railroad tracks in going to and from the river up to the time this boy was killed?” and answered, “Yes, sir; I have seen a good many of them come in and walk down to the bridge end and see the river. Especially when the water is high numbers of them go down to see the river.” There was no evidence that the water was high at the time of the injury. As to the last answer it is recited in the bill of exceptions: “Defendant moved to exclude this answer on the same grounds as assigned in the objection to the question, which motion the court overruled, and the defendant then and there duly excepted.” The grounds of objection to the question were “that it called for illegal, irrelevant, and immaterial testimony, was not confined, to the approximate time of day of the accident, and the approximate place of the accident, called for the use of the track at times other than the approximate time of day of the accident, and for the use of the .track at places other than the approximate place of the accident.”
No reversible error is shown. That part of the answer as follows: “I have, seen a good many of them come in and walk down to the bridge end and see the river,” was responsive and material to the issues as we have indicated. We have again examined the Heidtmueller and Grauer decisions, and the foregoing is not in conflict therewith.
It is sufficient to. say the several rulings have been considered, and no good purpose will be. conserved by discussing the same in detail.
The application for rehearing is overruled.