Annie Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Company, No. 816
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Writing for the Court | Day |
Citation | 58 L.Ed. 906,233 U.S. 184,34 S.Ct. 559 |
Parties | ANNIE MYERS, Petitioner, v. PITTSBURGH COAL COMPANY |
Docket Number | No. 816 |
Decision Date | 06 April 1914 |
v.
PITTSBURGH COAL COMPANY.
Page 185
Messrs. Charles K. Robinson, Edward C. Goodwin, and Frank H. Kennedy for petitioner.
Messrs. Don Rose and Charles Marshall Johnston for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 185-189 intentionally omitted]
Page 189
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
Annie Myers brought an action in the United States circuit court for the western district of Pennsylvania to recover for the death of her husband, John Myers, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, the Pittsburgh Coal Company. Under the law of Pennsylvania she might bring this action for the benefit of herself and minor children. A verdict was rendered against the Coal Company; on writ of error the case was reversed by the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit (121 C. C. A. 427, 203 Fed. 221), and it was brought here on writ of certiorari to that court.
The circuit court of appeals was of the opinion that upon the facts shown the plaintiff had not made out the right to recover, and the judgment was reversed without directing a new trial, and without sending the case back to the district court, which had succeeded to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, for that purpose. This was error within the doctrine of Slocum v. New York L. Ins. Co. 228 U. S. 364, 57 L. ed. 879, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 523; Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 229 U. S. 146, 153, 57 L. ed. 1125, 1128, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648, 3 N. C. C. A. 779. It is further contended that, apart from the question just noticed, the circuit court of appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the district court, as it did, upon the ground that there was not sufficient testimony in the case to show that the deceased came to his death by the negligence charged in the petition. To determine this question involves a brief consideration of the facts in the case.
Page 190
John Myers, at the time of his death, was, and for several months had been, in the employ of the Coal Company as 'snapper' or brakeman in underground operations, taking part in the movement of cars in and about the mine. It appears that on the morning of the injury, a train of empty coal cars, some thirty or forty in number, was being taken down the main entry and then further down a side entry into the mine, where the cars were to be subsequently distributed in the work. The manner of operation was that empty cars were hauled by a large electric motor car down the main entry to a side entry where a flying switch was made by which the motor car continued in the main entry beyond the junction of the side entry, and the cars ran down the side entry for a considerable distance, then, upon signal from Myers, whose duty it was to ride upon the rear car of the train, by the waving of his cap, which contained a lamp, or by the movement of his head with cap on, the motor car followed on down the entry, the purpose being to overtake the empty cars and distribute them in the mine. Down the side entry, about 157 feet from the main entry, was an automatic switch, which would turn the current into the trolley wire and permit the motor car to proceed farther into the mine. It was not working properly, and the motorman alighted and turned the switch by hand, returned to the motor car, and proceeded. Up to the time the motor car reached the automatic switch Myers had been seen signaling for the motor car to come on. Some distance further there was a branch of the trolley system running into another entry, and the trolley wire passed over the tracks in the side entry at a distance of about 5 feet, 7 1/2 inches above the rail, making it necessary for one of ordinary height to remain seated in the car or to stoop down. The roof of the entry was about 9 feet above the rail at this point. There was no light at this switch, nor was the wire guarded in any
Page 191
way. It also appears that because of ineffective carbons the headlight on the motor car was not burning, and had not been burning for several days; that requisition had been made upon the superintendent of the mine for new carbons, but that there were none at the mine. The motorman testified that when the headlight was burning he could see objects on the track clearly at a distance of 25 or 30 yards, and that the could stop his car in about 13...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Southern Railway Co., No. 38571.
...Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 63 Sup. Ct. 444; Jones v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 128 U.S. 443; Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 233 U.S. 184; New York Central R. Co. v. Marcone, 281 U.S. 345; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Harvey, 228 U.S. 319; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Hughes, 278 ......
-
Hasenjaeger v. Railroad Co., No. 21948.
...that the injury and death was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury. Mvers v. Railroad, 233 U.S. 184; Railroad v. Hughes, 240 Fed. 941: Railroad v. Rosenbloom, 240 U.S. 439: Railroad v. Effinger, 299 Fed. 950; Overstreet v. Railroad, 238 Fed. 5......
-
Buessel v. United States, 178.
...Vinso, 171 Mo. 576, 71 S.W. 1034. The rule has been applied in the federal as well as in the state courts. Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 233 U.S. 184, 195, 34 Sup.Ct. 559, 58 L.Ed. 906; Humes v. United States, 170 U.S. 210, 212, 18 Sup.Ct. 602, 42 L.Ed. 1011; St. Clair v. United States, 154......
-
Stassi v. United States, No. 9086.
...23 L. Ed. 887; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Volk, 151 U. S. 73, 78, 14 S. Ct. 239, 240, 38 L. Ed. 78; Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Company, 233 U. S. 184, 195, 34 S. Ct. 559, 58 L. Ed. 906. In Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, supra, the court said: "But the omission of the learned judge to instruc......
-
Johnson v. Southern Railway Co., No. 38571.
...Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 63 Sup. Ct. 444; Jones v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 128 U.S. 443; Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 233 U.S. 184; New York Central R. Co. v. Marcone, 281 U.S. 345; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Harvey, 228 U.S. 319; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Hughes, 278 ......
-
Hasenjaeger v. Railroad Co., No. 21948.
...that the injury and death was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury. Mvers v. Railroad, 233 U.S. 184; Railroad v. Hughes, 240 Fed. 941: Railroad v. Rosenbloom, 240 U.S. 439: Railroad v. Effinger, 299 Fed. 950; Overstreet v. Railroad, 238 Fed. 5......
-
Stassi v. United States, No. 9086.
...23 L. Ed. 887; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Volk, 151 U. S. 73, 78, 14 S. Ct. 239, 240, 38 L. Ed. 78; Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Company, 233 U. S. 184, 195, 34 S. Ct. 559, 58 L. Ed. 906. In Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, supra, the court said: "But the omission of the learned judge to instruc......
-
O'Donnell v. B. & O. Railroad Co., No. 28070.
...that the injury and death was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury. Myers v. Railroad, 233 U.S. 184; Railroad v. Hughes, 240 Fed. 941; Railroad v. Rosenbloom, 240 U.S. 439; Railroad v. Effinger, 299 Fed. 950; Overstreet v. Railroad, 238 Fed. 5......