Mobile Light R. Co. v. Gallasch

True, the counts charge the injury to the plaintiff as proximately caused by the negligence of the motorman, and there was proof that he was acting upon signals or instructions from the conductor. If he acted solely upon the orders or instructions of the conductor^ with no notice that a compliance with such instructions would probably produce injury, his act would not be negligence. A. G. S. R. R. v. Richie, 111 Ala. 297, 20 South. 49. The proof, however, in the case at bar, afforded a reasonable inference from which the jury could infer that, notwithstanding the motorman received a signal…