Basham v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 15 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 512,512 |
| Citation | 10 L.Ed.2d 80,83 S.Ct. 965,372 U.S. 699 |
| Parties | James BASHAM, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Ira Gammerman, New York City, for petitioner.
David J. Mountan, Jr., New York City, for respondent.
Petitioner, a car repairman employed by respondent railroad, brought this suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., in the Supreme Court of the State of New York to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of respondent's alleged negligence. A jury verdict for petitioner was set aside by the trial judge on the ground that negligence was not established. The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion, one judge dissenting, 10 A.D.2d 948, 201 N.Y.S.2d 362, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, also without opinion, 11 N.Y.2d 991, 229 N.Y.S.2d 428, 183 N.E.2d 704. This Court granted certiorari, 371 U.S. 860, 83 S.Ct. 128, 9 L.Ed.2d 98, to consider the propriety of the trial judge's action.
At the time of the accident, petitioner was working on a hoist platform located in a work pit underneath a railroad car on which new wheels were being installed. He testified that as he was lifting a 100-pound wheel spring into position the platform moved, causing him to drop the spring on his left index finger which, as a consequence, was amputated. Petitioner's version of the accident was confirmed by a co-worker who testified that he saw the platform move at the time of the injury. Petitioner offered additional evidence that prior complaints had been lodged with respondent about platform movements in similar and adjacent repair pits in which fellow employees were working and that safety equipment preventing platform movements had been installed in one of the adjacent pits but not in the pit where the accident occurred.
Respondent introduced evidence that it was physically impossible for the accident to have happened in the manner claimed by petitioner, that the platform was virtually immovable, and that the equipment installed in the adjacent pit was put there to assure that the platform was in position when the men went to work and had nothing to do with the movement of the platform during the process of installing new wheels.
The conflict in the testimony was resolved by the jury's verdict in favor of the petitioner. Since there was an evidentiary basis for that verdict, it was error for the New York trial and appellate courts to reevaluate the conflicting evidence and mandate a result opposite from that reached by the jury.
In Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L.Ed. 916, also an F.E.L.A. action, the employer argued, as does respondent here, that its evidence tended to show it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc
...of witnesses, and reaching a verdict. The jury's factual determinations as a general rule are final. Basham v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 372 U.S. 699, 83 S.Ct. 965, 10 L.Ed.2d 80 (1963). In some civil cases, as we noted earlier this Term, the jury can weigh the gravity of a wrong and determine t......
-
Kucinich v. Forbes
...that evidence is present in the record which can be applied to each element of Rule 23. See, Basham v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 372 U.S. 699, 700-701, 83 S.Ct. 965, 10 L.Ed.2d 80 (1963); Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 204, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). Therefore due p......
-
Turpin v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
...Dennis v. The Denver, Rio Grande Western Railroad Co., 371 U.S. 946, 83 S.Ct. 501, 9 L.Ed.2d 496, and Basham v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 372 U.S. 699, 83 S.Ct. 965, 10 L.Ed.2d 80. Those cases all involved issues of negligence or proximate cause under the FELA, and it was to the proof on t......
-
Wood v. Diamond M Drilling Co.
...even though contradictory evidence was presented, if there is an evidentiary basis for the verdict. Basham v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 372 U.S. 699, 83 S.Ct. 965, 10 L.Ed.2d 80 (1963); Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L.Ed. 916 Measured by these standards, we hold that the......