Jenkins v. Kurn, 732
| Decision Date | 05 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 732,732 |
| Citation | 61 S.Ct. 934,85 L.Ed. 1316,313 U.S. 256 |
| Parties | JENKINS v. KURN et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Harry G. Waltner, Jr., of Jefferson City, Mo., for petitioner.
Mr. Frank C. Mann, of Springfield, Mo., for respondents.
When the interstate train on which he was fireman emerged from a curve on the outskirts of Winfield, Kansas, petitioner sighted a train standing not more than six hundred feet ahead on the same track. He shouted to the engineer to push the brake valve over in emergency. The engineer turned and looked at him but did nothing to arrest the movement of the train. Petitioner jumped from his seat, crossed the cab, and stood behind the engineer for a brief time but said nothing. When the engine was but two or three car lengths from the standing train, the engineer applied the brakes. At that moment petitioner leaped from the engine and landed in some rocks along the track. He sustained serious injuries and to recover damages brought the instant action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51—59, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51—59, against respondents in a Missouri circuit court.
The complaint contained five counts charging negligence, but only the fourth was submitted to the jury. Count four alleged: '* * * that said engineer * * * was further negligent in that after he was notified by (petitioner) that the (train) was standing on said track near said crossing, he failed to immediately apply the air in the emergency, to stop said train, which negligence created a dilemma of imminent peril, which forced (petitioner) to jump from said train in order to save his life, or some bodily harm.'
The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict of $12,000. From judgment in that amount entered for petitioner, respondents appealed, assigning various errors. Confining its attention to one, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the circuit court should have granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict. It reversed the judgment but did not remand the cause for a new trial. 144 S.W.2d 76, 79. We granted certiorari on March 10, 1941. 312 U.S. 675, 61 S.Ct. 740, 85 L.Ed. —-.
It is conceded that the action was properly brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The single question is whether the trial court correctly refused to direct a verdict for respondents.
In explanation of its conclusion that the trial court erred, the Supreme Court of Missouri observed: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
...R. Co., 308 U.S. 529, 60 S.Ct. 385, 84 L.Ed. 447;* reversal of judgment for plaintiff reversed. 1940 Term. Jenkins v. Kurn, 313 U.S. 256, 61 S.Ct. 934, 85 L.Ed. 1316; reversal of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Steeley v. Kurn, 313 U.S. 545, 61 S.Ct. 1087, 85 L.Ed. 1512;* reversal of judgm......
-
Johnson v. Southern Railway Co., 38571.
... ... 781, 62 S. Ct. 806, 86 L. Ed. 1188; Conformed to 349 Mo. 1249, 164 S.W. (2d) 336; Jenkins v. Kurn, 346 Mo. 904, 144 S.W. (2d) ... 175 S.W.2d 805 ... 76; Reversed 313 U.S. 256; 61 S. Ct ... ...
-
Oench, Duhme Co v. Federal Deposit Ins Corporation
...44, 52 S.Ct. 45, 76 L.Ed. 157; Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 54 S.Ct. 695, 78 L.Ed. 1230, 93 A.L.R. 195; Jenkins v. Kurn, 313 U.S. 256, 61 S.Ct. 934, 85 L.Ed. 1316; Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 313 U.S. 289, 61 S.Ct. 995, 85 L.Ed. 1361; O'Brien v. Western Union Telegraph Co......
-
Taylor v. Lumaghi Coal Co.
...(2d) 387. (14) There was no error in giving Instruction 2. Lepchenski v. Mobile & Ohio R. Co., 332 Mo. 194, 59 S.W. (2d) 610; Jenkins v. Kurn, 313 U.S. 256; Lee v. City Ice Co., 64 S.W. (2d) 736. (15) The word "impending," as used in the instruction, is synonymous with and equivalent to "im......