Catherine Reese v. Philadelphia Reading Railway Company
| Decision Date | 20 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 608,608 |
| Citation | 239 U.S. 463,60 L.Ed. 384,36 S.Ct. 134 |
| Parties | CATHERINE C. REESE, Administratrix of the Estate of Grrett Tracy Reese, Deceased, Plff. in Err., v. PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. George Demming for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. William Clarke Mason and Charles Heebner for defendant in error.
Relying upon the Federal employers' liability act, plaintiff in error brought suit against the railway company in the district court to recover damages for her husband's death, alleged to have resulted from the negligent and improper construction and maintenance of its tracks in too close proximity to each other.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, the trial court, finding 'no evidence of negligence or neglect to provide him [the employee] with a safe place to work as to the act he was performing at that time,' entered a nonsuit and afterwards refused to take it off. This was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals (225 Fed. 518) upon the ground that the railroad 'did not fail in its duty to provide the deceased with a reasonably safe place to work;' and the sole question for our consideration is whether any other conclusion could be legitimately drawn from the facts disclosed.
For use in shifting freight cars and making up trains, the defendant maintains, as a part of its Noble street yard, two parallel tracks running north and south along Front street, Philadelphia, from which other tracks, curves, and turnouts lead into different freight sheds, warehouses, etc. These were located and are maintained under an ordinance of the city according to plans duly approved by its officials. At and near the place of the accident the street is almost entirely occupied by them. The distance between such north and south tracks is much less than the general standard adopted by the company, and box cars moving thereon have barely enough room to pass. These conditions are obvious and have existed for fifteen years or more.
Deceased was a capable, experienced fireman in a night switching crew operating in the yard, which was properly lighted, and acquainted with the general conditions described. The cause was tried upon the theory that about midnight, November 18, 1912, while his engine was moving 5 miles per hour along one of the parallel tracks, he attempted to procure drinking water at a tap in the side, near the bottom, and 3 fect from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
...Co. v. Koennecke, 239 U.S. 352, 36 S.Ct. 126, 60 L.Ed. 324; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Reese v. Philadelphia & R.R. Co., 239 U.S. 463, 36 S.Ct. 134, 60 L.Ed. 384; affirmance of nonsuit Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Wright, 239 U.S. 548, 36 S.Ct. 185, 60 L.Ed. 431; affirman......
-
McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...284 U.S. 44; Baugham v. Ry. Co., 241 U.S. 237; Southern Pac. Co. v. Berkshire, 254 U.S. 415, 65 L. Ed. 335, 41 Sup. Ct. 162; Reese v. Ry. Co., 239 U.S. 463; Boldt v. Railroad Co., 245 U.S. Eagleton, Waechter, Yost, Elam & Clark for respondent. (1) The defendant's demurrers to the evidence w......
-
Armstrong v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
...Railroad Co., 122 U.S. 189, 30 L. Ed. 1114; Randall v. Baltimore Railroad Co., 109 U.S. 480, 27 L. Ed. 1040; Reese v. Philadelphia Railroad Co., 239 U.S. 463, 60 L. Ed. 384; Delaware & L. Railroad Co. v. Koske, 279 U.S. 7, 49 Sup. Ct. 202; Seabord Air Line Railroad Co. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 4......
-
Armstrong v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
... ... Armstrong, v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of ... Co., 109 U.S. 480, 27 L.Ed. 1040; Reese v ... Philadelphia Railroad Co., 239 U.S. 463, ... Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 201 F. 54; Reading Co. v ... Haldeman, 20 F.2d 53; N. & W ... ...