Atlantic Coast Line Co v. Davis

Decision Date18 February 1929
Citation279 U.S. 34,73 L.Ed. 601,49 S.Ct. 210
PartiesATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. DAVIS. No. ___
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Thomas W. Davis, of Wilmington, N. C., and Henry E. Davis, of Florence, S. C., for petitioner.

Messrs. William C. Wolfe, of Orangeburg, S. C., and Thomas H. Peeples, of Columbia, S. C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

Richards, and employee of the Railroad Company, suffered personal injuries that resulted in his death. Davis, the administrator of his estate, brought this action against the Railroad Company in a common pleas court of South Carolina. The declaration alleged that the injury was caused by the negligence of the Railroad Company in failing to provide Richards a safe place in which to work. At the conclusion of the evidence the Railroad Company moved for a directed verdict. This was denied. The jury found for the administrator; and the judgment entered on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 147 S. E. 834.

It is unquestioned that the case is controlled by the Federal Employers' Liability Act,1 under which it was prosecuted. Hence, if it appears from the record that under the applicable principles of law as interpreted by the Federal courts, the evidence was not sufficient in kind or amount to warrant a finding that the negligence of the Railroad Company was the cause of the death, the judgment must be reversed. Gulf, etc., R. R. v. Wells, 275 U. S. 455, 457, 48 S. Ct. 151, 72 L. Ed. 370; and cases cited.

Richards was injured while on a steam shovel standing by the side of the railroad track that was being operated by an independent contractor employed by the Railroad Company to fill in trestles on its lines. With this steam shovel the contractor excavated dirt from the railroad right of way and loaded it upon a train of dump cars, which was hauled to the trestles, where the dirt was deposited. The contractor furnished and operated the steam shovel, and also furnished the train of cars. The Railroad Company furnished the locomotive and train crew 'for the operation of the contractor's train while on the railroad tracks,' and hauled the train of cars to and from the trestles.

Richards was employed by the Railroad Company as a member of the train crew. He was the flagman, and his duty was to put out flags and protect the train from collisions.

In excavating and loading the dirt the steam shovel was stationed at a convenient distance on the side of the railroad track. The accessible dirt was excavated and loaded on the train of cars standing on the track. As each car was loaded the train was moved to get the loaded car out of the way and bring the next car into position for loading. For this it was necessary to signal the engineer to move the train. This was sometimes done by the shovel operator by the use of a whistle, and sometimes by the contractor's crew of laborers who were used 'to spot cars,' that is, watch the loading and signal to the engineer. One of these laborers, called a 'spotter,' was used for this particular purpose. The evidence shows, however, that the cars were frequently spotted by members of the train crew. This appears to have been entirely voluntary on their part. The contractor had never requested that they be required to do this, and the conductor of the train, who was in sole charge of the crew, had never directed them to spot the cars. The conductor also sometimes voluntarily spotted cars, and he had seen other members of the crew thus engaged; but, understanding that, like himself, they were doing this voluntarily, did not stop them from doing this work when they chose.

The main platform of the steam shovel was occupied by a 'shovel house' covering the engine and boiler. By the side of this was a running board extending to the front corner post of the shovel house. In front of the shovel house was a crane, having a revolving boom about thirty feet long, to which a dipper stick and scoop was attached. This scooped up the dirt, and by a circular movement of the boom was brought into position for loading the dirt on the cars. When the shovel was stationed in the position occupied on the day of the accident, at a considerable distance from the track, this required a 'full swing' of the boom. Between the shovel house and the crane there was an upright steel frame which prevented the boom from striking the shovel house. But attached to the side of the boom several feet from its base was an iron ladder, which would pass above the steel frame, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 cases
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1930
    ... ... them in application." Industrial Accident Com. v ... Davis, Agent, 259 U.S. 182, 42 S.Ct. 489, 491, 66 L.Ed ... 888; cf. Hench v ... cause of his injury that a recovery is denied him ... Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Driggers, 279 U.S ... 787, 49 S.Ct. 490, 73 L.Ed ... ...
  • Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1957
    ...W.R. Co. v. Koske, 279 U.S. 7, 49 S.Ct. 202, 73 L.Ed. 578; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Davis, 279 U.S. 34, 49 S.Ct. 210, 73 L.Ed. 601; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Driggers, 279 U.S. 787, 49 S.C......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1937
    ...Southern Ry. Co. v. Gray Co., 241 U.S. 339, 36 Sup. Ct. 558, 60 L. Ed. 1030; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Aeby, 275 U.S. 426; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Davis, 279 U.S. 37; Southern Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 44 Fed. (2d) 526. (4) The plaintiff failed to prove that at the time of the injury he was......
  • Hardin v. Ill. Central Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 19, 1934
    ...& Ohio Ry. Co. v. Stapleton, 279 U.S. 587; Peters v. Wabash Ry. Co., 42 S.W. (2d) 588; Norton v. Wheelock, 23 S.W. (2d) 146; Railroad Co. v. Davis, 279 U.S. 34. (b) Wholly unsubstantial evidence cannot support a verdict. The rule established by the Supreme Court of the United States is that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT