Alabama G. S. R.R. v. Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So.

803,
Facts
W.D. Carroll (plaintiff), an Alabama citizen, was employed as a brakeman under an Alabama
contract with the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company (Alabama Southern) (defendant).
While working on a freight train running from Alabama to Mississippi, Carroll was injured on
account of a defective link between two cars. The injury occurred in Mississippi, but Carroll
alleged that its cause happened in Alabama. Evidence showed that fellow employees of Carroll
were negligent in failing to discover the defect or remedy it. Carroll sued Alabama Southern in
Alabama court. He alleged that the employment contract rendered Alabama Southern subject to
Alabama law even if Carroll were working outside of the state. If Mississippi law were applicable,
Alabama Southern could not be liable because Mississippi subscribed to the common law rule
that a master is not liable for harm to a servant caused by a fellow servant. An Alabama
employers’ liability statute, however, modified the common law in that state so as to make a
master liable for injury to a servant. A jury decided in favor of Carroll. Alabama Southern
appealed.

Issue.
May recovery be obtained for a tortious act in the state where the breach of duty occurred, but
not where the injury was sustained?

Held.
No.

Where a negligent act is committed in one state, but causes injury in a different state, an action
seeking damages for injuries resulting from the act may be brought only in the state where the
result occurred, and not where the act was committed. The general rule is that recovery cannot
be made in one state for the injuries to the person sustained in a different state unless the
infliction of the injuries is actionable under the law of the state where the injuries were
received. In this case, up to the time the train passed from Alabama, no injury had resulted. The
Alabama statute has no efficiency beyond state lines. Only Mississippi could apply proper
jurisdiction over the claim. There may have been a different result if Carroll had been injured in
Alabama but suffered in Mississippi. As for an argument that the Railroad (Defendant) was under
a contractual duty to Carroll (Plaintiff), which arose in Alabama, the Alabama law will govern only
occurrences of the employment relationship and not with any specific contractual
obligations. Reversed and remanded.