Birmingham Electric Co. v. Maze
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
GARDNER, Justice.
Count 2, upon which, for plaintiff, the case was tried, sought damages suffered by her as a passenger on defendant’s car, and was rested upon the theory of relationship of carrier and passenger.
Defendant insists that at the time and place complained of that relationship did not exist, and the affirmative charge should have been given in its behalf. We conclude the undisputed proof supports this contention.
Plaintiff, with her grandchild, boarded defendant’s car one summer afternoon at Brighton, only a few miles from Bessemer; the latter being their point of destination. The…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- B'ham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. GlennSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Higley v. GilmerMontana Supreme Court · 1878
- Lillis v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Boling v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Louisville N. R. Co. v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Birmingham Electric Co. v. BaileyAlabama Court of Appeals · 1943
- Birmingham Electric Co. v. BaileySupreme Court of Alabama · 1943