Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Carroll
97 Ala. 126 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The substantive law of the state where an injury occurs (the lex loci delicti) governs the cause of action for that injury, regardless of where the underlying contract of employment was formed or where the negligent act that caused the injury originated.
Facts:
- W. D. Carroll, an Alabama citizen, was employed by the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, as a freight train brakeman.
- The employment contract was made in Alabama for a route running from Birmingham, Alabama, to Meridian, Mississippi.
- A foreign railroad car with a defective link was coupled into the defendant's train in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
- In Birmingham, Alabama, the train was reconfigured, using the same defective link to couple two cars bound for Meridian.
- The defendant's employees were responsible for inspecting train equipment, including links, at stations such as Birmingham.
- While the train was traveling through the State of Mississippi, the defective link broke.
- The breaking of the link caused Carroll to suffer a personal injury.
Procedural Posture:
- W. D. Carroll sued the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company in an Alabama trial court.
- At trial, the court refused to give a general affirmative charge (similar to a directed verdict) for the defendant railroad.
- The Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Alabama Employer's Liability Act apply to a personal injury sustained by an employee in Mississippi, when the contract of employment was made in Alabama and the negligence causing the injury also originated in Alabama?
Opinions:
Majority - McClellan, J.
No. The Alabama Employer's Liability Act does not apply because the cause of action is governed by the law of the state where the injury was sustained, which was Mississippi. A cause of action in tort arises not where the negligent act is committed, but where the injurious consequence of that act occurs. Since Carroll's injury transpired in Mississippi, the right to sue was created there, and the laws of Mississippi must determine whether a cause of action exists. Alabama's statute has no extraterritorial effect and cannot create a liability for an event occurring in another state where that state's law does not recognize such liability. The employment contract merely establishes the master-servant relationship; it does not import the statutory duties and liabilities of Alabama law into other jurisdictions. Each state has the exclusive power to determine what acts or omissions create a cause of action within its own territory.
Analysis:
This case establishes the traditional conflict of laws principle of lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the wrong) for tort actions in Alabama. It firmly rejects the theories that the law of the place of the contract (lex loci contractus) or the law of the place of the negligent act should govern. The decision solidifies the territorial limitation of state statutes, preventing them from having extraterritorial effect and clarifying that a tort cause of action is not created until an injury actually occurs. This precedent is significant in interstate commerce and employment cases, as it provides a clear, albeit rigid, rule for determining which state's substantive law applies to an injury.
