Legal Opinion

Owen v. Southern Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 19, 1931No. 7 Div. 21PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOSTER, J..

Usually the duty owing by the operatives of a train of- cars to an animal on' the.track is not discharged by a proper equipment and operation of the train, and the diligent and skillful use of the appliances to avoid the injury after a discovery of the presence of the animal on the track, as hypothesized in given charges 5 and 8, but it is the duty of the engineer to keep such constant lookout for animals on the track as is consistent with the performance of his other duties. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Stark, 126 Ala. 365, 28 So. 411; Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Dumas, 131 Ala. 172, 30…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Louisville N. R. Co. v. GreenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  2. Alabama City G. & A. Ry. Co. v. LumpkinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
  3. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  4. Louisville N. R. Co. v. CoxeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  5. Nashville C. & St. L. Ry. v. BinghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lloyd v. Alton Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1941
  2. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. ViseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  3. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. HillAlabama Court of Appeals · 1949
  4. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. AdamsAlabama Court of Appeals · 1954
  5. Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. YatesAlabama Court of Appeals · 1955

4 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