Legal Opinion

Ford v. Planters' Chemical & Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 16, 1930No. 7 Div. 912PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.

Plaintiff, a minor of tender years, was injured by contact with a “spiral conveyor” of steel or iron which revolved on the outside of defendant’s building, eliminating waste and débris. For the most part plaintiff’s complaint rests for recovery upon the doctrine of the so-called “turntable” cases. Sioux City & P. Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 21 L. Ed. 745; United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U. S. 268, 42 S. Ct. 299, 66 L. Ed. 615, 36 A. L. R. 28; Cox v. Ala. Water Co., 216 Ala. 36, 112 So. 352, 355, 53 A. L. R. 1336; Athey v. Tenn. Coal, Iron & R. Co., 191 Ala. 646, 68 So. 154,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. BrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Athey v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1915
  4. Cox v. Alabama Water Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  5. Williams v. BoldingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Moseley v. Alabama Power Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1945
  2. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. GreenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964
  3. Luallen v. Woodstock Iron Steel CorporationSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  4. Earnest v. Regent Pool, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1972
  5. Cobb v. Lowe Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API