Bride v. Toledo Terminal Railroad Company
Decision Date | 24 June 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 972,972 |
Citation | 354 U.S. 517,1 L.Ed.2d 1534,77 S.Ct. 1398 |
Parties | Theodore C. McBRIDE, petitioner, v. TOLEDO TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 1957, 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493.
In Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 524, 77 S.Ct. 443, I gave my reasons for deeming it an abuse of the Court's discretionary certiorari jurisdiction to make cases arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., a class excep- tion to the Court's principle against granting certiorari when all that is involved is the evaluation of evidence. The circumstances of the present case vividly emphasize the objections to such an exception.
All that is to be determined in this case is whether there were sufficient facts to warrant a jury in finding that the lighting in the situation in which petitioner worked, assumed to be inadequate, caused in whole or in part the injury to petitioner. The trial judge in the Court of Common Please thought not. On review, the Court of Appeals of Lucas County reversed: two judges thought there were enough facts to justify a jury's finding of causation while the dissenting judge agreed with the trial court. On review of this reversal, the Supreme Court of Ohio, with one of its seven judges not sitting, unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals and restored the judgment of the trial court. 166 Ohio St. 129, 140 N.E.2d 319. Thus, this issue of the sufficiency of evidence for a jury's finding of relevant causation was passed on by the three courts in the hierarchy of Ohio's judiciary. Of the ten judges, eight found the evidence insufficient for a jury to guess at and two thought they should be allowed to guess—for determination of causation is inescapably guessing, informed guessing if you will, but guessing.
Congress saw fit to give the state courts jurisdiction of the rights it created by the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Presumably, it had confidence in the state courts for enforcement of these rights. It emphasized this confidence by a special Act, passed more than forty years ago, which withdrew from this Court what theretofore had been appealiability as of right of judgments of state courts in Federal Employers' Liability Act cases. It left adjudications brought in the state courts with the state courts, except in instances applicable generally to the jurisdiction on writ of certiorari, to be exercised, that is, 'only where there are special and important reasons therefor.' Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of this Court, 28 U.S.C.A.
It cannot be too often repeated. This Court has said again and again that a difference of opinion in weighing evidence is not included among 'special and important reasons' for granting certiorari. One would suppose that an examination of the evidence by three courts and ten judges of Ohio would be proof that the facts in the case have been conscinentiously canvassed. A different case would be presented were this Court to find that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rankin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
...2, 3 L.Ed.2d 25. See Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. R., supra, 352 U.S. at pages 503-504, 77 S.Ct. 443; McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. R. Co., 354 U.S. 517, 77 S.Ct. 1398, 1 L.Ed.2d 1534; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 354 U.S. 901, 77 S.Ct. 1093, 1 L.Ed.2d 268. See also Arnold v. Panhand......
-
Boeing Company v. Shipman
...States never intended." "2. The jury awards in the cases discussed were as follows: Rogers, $40,000; Gallick, $625,000; Webb, $15,000; McBride, $51,000 and Harris, $25.000. 16 Ohio St.2d at 104, 105, 243 N.E.2d at 103, 104. It is like gilding the lily for me to add anything to Chief Judge T......
-
Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
...698, 1 L.Ed.2d 722; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O.R. Co., 354 U.S. 901, 77 S.Ct. 1093, 1 L.Ed.2d 1268; McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U.S. 517, 77 S.Ct. 1398, 1 L.Ed.2d 1534; Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U.S. 18, 78 S.Ct. 2, 2 L.Ed.2d 1; Stinson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 355 U.S. 62, ......
-
Easterwood v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
...case has been followed in McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 166 Ohio St. 129, 140 N.E.2d 319 (reversed on other grounds, 354 U.S. 517, 77 S.Ct. 1398, 1 L.Ed.2d 1534; Croke v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., supra, 86 Ohio App. 483, 93 N.E.2d 311; Johnson v. Gernon, 91 Ohio App. 529, 107 N.E.2d ......