(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, when a personal injury is received by a servant or employee in the service or business of the master or employer, the master or employer is liable to answer in damages to such servant or employee, as if he were a stranger and not engaged in such service or employment, provided such liability is enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction, in the cases following:
(1) When the injury is caused by reason of any defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery or plant connected with or used in the business of the master or employer.
(2) When the injury is caused by reason of the negligence of any person in the service or employment of the master or employer who has any superintendence intrusted to him, while in the exercise of such superintendence.
(3) When such injury is caused by reason of the negligence of any person in the service or employment of the master or employer, to whose orders or directions the servant or employee at the time of the injury was bound to conform and did conform, if such injuries resulted from his having so conformed.
(4) When such injury is caused by reason of the act or omission of any person in the service or employment of the master or employer, done or made in obedience to the rules and regulations or bylaws of the master or employer, or in obedience to particular instructions given by any person delegated with the authority of the master or employer in that behalf.
(5) When such injury is caused by reason of the negligence of any person in the service or employment of the master or employer, who has charge or control of any signal, points, locomotive, engine, electric motor, switch, car or train, upon a railway or any part of the track of a railway.
(b) The master or employer is not liable under this section, if the servant or employee knew of the defect or negligence causing the injury and failed in a reasonable time to give information thereof to the master or employer, or to some person superior to himself engaged in the service or employment of the master or employer, unless the master or employer, or such superior, already knew of such defect or negligence, nor is the master or employer liable under subdivision (a) (1) unless the defect therein mentioned arose from, or had not been discovered or remedied, owing to the negligence of the master or employer, or of some person in the service of the master or employer, and intrusted by him with the duty of seeing that the ways, works, machinery or plant were in proper condition, but in no event shall it be contributory negligence or an assumption of the risk on the part of a servant to remain in the employment of the master or employer after knowledge of the defect or negligence causing the injury, unless he be a servant whose duty it is to remedy the defect or who committed the negligent act causing the injury complained of.
(Code 1886, §2590; Code 1896, §1749; Code 1907, §3910; Acts 1911, No. 456, p. 485; Code 1923, §7598; Code 1940, T. 26, §326.)
Notes of Decisions
Schoenvogel v. Venator Grp. Retail, Inc., 895 So. 2d 225 (Ala. 2004).
“Andrea Schoenvogel alleges causes of action for negligent or wanton hiring, supervision, retention and entrustment; assault and battery; invasion of privacy; outrage; violation of the Employer's Liability Act, § 25-6-1, Alabama Code; and felonious injury in violation of §…”
Cason v. Miller, 202 So. 3d 669 (Ala. 2016).
“” On May 1, 2015, the Casons filed a second amended complaint asserting a claim against Rock Wool under the Alabama Employer’s Liability Act, § 25-6-1 et seq.y Ala. Code 1975. On June 2, 2015, Rock Wool filed a motion to dismiss the Casons’ second amended complaint.”
Mathis v. Harrell Co., Inc., 828 So. 2d 248 (Ala. 2002).
· cites it 2× “On November 16, 1998, the Mathises filed an amended complaint, in which Kenneth Mathis stated a claim under the Employer’s Liability Act, § 25-6-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, in which he alleged that his injuries were caused by a defect in the condition of the Super Packer and a…”
City of Birmingham v. Hale, 574 So. 2d 784 (Ala. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Hale’s estate, sued the City of Birmingham, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 25-6-1 et seq., the Alabama Employer’s Liability Act.”
Lands v. DeKalb Jackson Ret. Home, 688 So. 2d 873 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Instead, the case was tried by a jury on August 7,1995, under the Employer’s Liability Act, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 25-6-1. This Act provides the following in pertinent part: “(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, when a personal injury is received by a servant or…”
City of Birmingham v. Waits, 706 So. 2d 1127 (Ala. 1997).
· cites it 15× “In preparation for trial, Waits amended her response to the motions for summary judgment, in compliance with the trial court’s request that she address the issue whether Ala.Code 1975, § 25-6-1 (a portion of the Employer’s Liability Act), protected the de *1129 fendant City of…”
Vets. of Foreign Wars Post 7320 v. Sheffield, 398 So. 2d 262 (Ala. 1981).
“This action was brought under the Employer’s Liability Act, Code 1975, § 25-6-1 et seq., and resulted in a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $20,000.”
Smith v. Thrower Nursery, Inc., 360 So. 2d 741 (Ala. 1978).
“3 Nine months later Smith filed suit against Thrower alleging negligence in the death of Dana Smith; he later amended that suit to include a count based on the Alabama Employer’s Liability Act, § 25-6-1, et seq., Code of Ala.1975 (formerly Tit.”
Doe ex dem. Kennedy v. Holman, 19 Ala. 734 (Ala. 1851).
“611, § 25-6-1. By the provisions of the 26th sec-above referred to, where several actions of ejectment have been commenced for the same premises on the demises of different lessors, it may be lawful for the plaintiff in either of the cases,during the pendency of his suit, to…”
Sikes v. Jones, 686 So. 2d 1202 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Sikes sued Jones pursuant to the Employer’s Liability Act, §§ 25-6-1' to -4, Ala.Code 1975. Alabama’s workers’ compensation laws do not apply, because Sikes was a farm laborer and Jones employed fewer than five employees.”
— Ala. Code § 25-6-1(18) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.