Legal Opinion
Alabama By-Products Corporation v. Cosby
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided November 3, 1927No. 6 Div. 890PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
Counsel for the appellant cite the attractive nuisance cases. They are collected in Gandy v. Copeland, 204 Ala. 366, 86 So. 3, and adhered to by this court. Golson v. Covington Mfg. Co., 205 Ala. 226, 87 So. 439; Eades v. Amer. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 208 Ala. 556, 94 So. 593; Robins v. Central of Ga. Ry., 212 Ala. 596, 103 So. 672. See, also, 36 A. L. R. 69, note, et seq.; 23 A. L. R. 1009, note.
The rule of duty as to an invitee, and especially as to a child of tender age, irrespective of whether the inquiry was by reason of an attractive nuisance, is stated in Thompson v. Alexander City Cotton…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bennett v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. CrosbySupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Birmingham Amusement Co. v. NorrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Athey v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Thompson v. Alexander City Cotton Mills Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1914
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- MacKintosh Co. v. WellsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- F. W. Woolworth Co. v. EricksonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Alabama Clay Products Co. v. MathewsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Bailey v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
- Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. ZeidlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.