Camden Suburban Railway Company v. David Stetson

• Decision Date: 09 April 1900
• Docket Number: No. 174,174
• Parties: CAMDEN & SUBURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. DAVID S. STETSON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

177 U.S. 172

20 S.Ct. 617

44 L.Ed. 721

CAMDEN & SUBURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v DAVID S. STETSON.

No. 174.

Argued March 6, 1900.

Decided April 9, 1900.

This case comes here upon a certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit, under the act of 1891, chapter 517, section 6 (26 Stat. at L. 826). The action was brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, by the plaintiff against the railway company, to recover damages for an alleged injury to his person caused by the neglect of the defendant while the plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's cars. At the time that he brought suit plaintiff was a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, the railway company being a corporation of the state of New Jersey. The alleged neglect and injury occurred on the 13th day of July, 1896, in the city of Camden, in the state of New Jersey, and at that time the plaintiff was a citizen of that state.

On the 12th of May, 1896, the legislature of New Jersey passed and the governor approved an act which reads as follows:

'1. On or before the trial of any action brought to recover damages for injury to the person, the court before whom such action is pending may, from time to time, on application of any party therein, order and direct an examination of the person injured, as to the injury complained of, by a competent physician or physicians, surgeon or surgeons, in order to qualify the person or persons making such examination, to testify in the said cause as to the nature, extent, and probable duration of the injury complained of; and the court may in such order direct and determine the time and place of such examination; provided, this act shall not be construed to prevent any other person or physician from being called and examined as a witness as heretofore.'

When the case was called for trial on March 31, 1898, and after a jury had been impaneled, but before the case was opened to the jury, the defendant's counsel asked in open court that the plaintiff should submit himself to examination by a competent surgeon. The plaintiff would not consent, and the court held that it had no power to order the plaintiff to subject himself to examination by physicians against his will, and it therefore refused to make the order asked for by counsel for the defendant, who was thereupon allowed an exception to the ruling. The trial proceeded and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brought the case by writ of error before the circuit court of appeals, and that court, desiring the instruction of this court upon the matter, made the foregoing statement and ordered the following questions to be certified here:

'1. Is the above-recited statute of the state of New Jersey, the act of May 12, 1896, applicable to an action to recover damages for injury to the person brought and tried in the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey?

'2. Is said statute applicable to an action to recover damages for injury to the person brought and tried in the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, where the injury occurred in the state of New Jersey, and both the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of the injury were citizens of that state?

'3. Had the circuit court the legal right or power to order a surgical examination of the plaintiff?'

Messrs. E. A. Armstrong and D. J. Pancoast for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Howard Carrow for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Peckham, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court:

An answer to the third question, 'Had the circuit court the legal right or power to order a surgical examination of the plaintiff?'—will be all that is necessary for the action of the court below.

It is settled in this court that no power to make such an order exists at common law; in other words, the court has no inherent power to make it. Union P. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 35 L. ed. 734, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1000. In that case there was no statute of the state in which the United States court was held which authorized the order. There is no intimation in the opinion that a statute of a state directly authorizing such examination would be a violation of the Federal Constitution, or invalid for any other reason.

In this case we have such a statute, and by section 721 of the Revised Statutes of the United States it is provided that 'the laws of the several states, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in courts of the United States, in cases in which they apply.'

Does not this statute of the state apply in trials at common law in the United States courts sitting in the state where the statute exists?

The case before us is a common-law action; it is one to recover damages for a tort, which is an action of that nature. It was being tried in the state which enacted the statute, and the court was asked to apply such statute to the trial of an action at common law.

Neither the Constitution, treaties, nor statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide. The statute concerns the evidence which may be given on a trial in New Jersey, and it does not conflict with any statute of the United States upon that subject. It is not a question of a general nature, like the law merchant, but simply one concerning evidence based upon a local statute applicable to actions brought within the state to recover damages for injury to the person. The statute comes within the principle of the decisions of this court holding a law of the state of such a nature binding upon Federal courts sitting within the state. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 18, 10 L. ed. 865, 871; Nichols v. Levy, 5 Wall. 433, 18 L. ed. 596; Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How. 517, 520, 15 L. ed. 509, 511; Ex parte...