Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company v. Asa Carnahan

• Decision Date: 22 May 1916
• Docket Number: No. 743,743
• Citation: 36 S.Ct. 594,241 U.S. 241,60 L.Ed. 979
• Parties: CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. ASA P. CARNAHAN
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

241 U.S. 241

36 S.Ct. 594

60 L.Ed. 979

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v ASA P. CARNAHAN.

No. 743.

Argued and submitted April 19 and 20, 1916.

Decided May 22, 1916.

Messrs. David H. Leake and Walter Leake for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. C. W. Allen and Homan W. Walsh for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Error to review a judgment in favor of defendant in error for $25,000 damages for injuries sustained through the asserted negligence of plaintiff in error.

The action was at law under the employers' liability act of Congress. 35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657; 36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143. In accordance with the state law it was tried to a jury of seven. This is assigned as error. The only other assignment is upon an instruction of the court as to the elements of damage. There is no dispute as to the fact of injury, or that it was received in interstate commerce, and by the negligence of plaintiff in error.

(1) The first assignment of error is based upon a challenge by the railway company to the array of jurors on the ground that the jury was not summoned, selected, formed, and constituted as provided by the Constitution of the United States. In other words, the contention is 'that in the trial of cases under the employers' liability act of Congress the parties are entitled to a common-law jury of twelve men, as provided for by the 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'

The assignment is without foundation. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Bombolis, decided this day [241 U. S. 211, 60 L. ed. ——, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595].

(2) The instruction which is the basis of the second assignment of error is as follows:

'The court instructs the jury that if they believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in this action, then in assessing damages against the defendant, they may take into consideration the pain and suffering of the plaintiff, his mental anguish, the bodily injury sustained by him, his pecuniary loss, his loss of power and capacity for work and its effect upon his future, not however, in excess of $35,000, as to them may seem just and fair.' [——Va. ——, 86 S. E. 863.]

It is objected (a) that the instruction permitted a recovery in damages not only for those which proximately resulted from the injury, but also for 'its effects upon the future,' which involved a consideration of consequences which might be essentially speculative and remote. (b) The instruction directed the jury that the damages might be in such sum not in excess of $35,000 as to them might seem just and fair. By the instruction the court called the attention of the jury to a certain sum and gave iudicial approval of it, giving them to understand that they could give such sum as they might deem just and fair, without regard to the damages the evidence might prove.

The injury received is pertinent to the consideration of the instruction. In the collision of two trains defendant in error, who was a fireman, 'was caught' (we quote from the opinion of the supreme court) 'from his knee of his right leg down, between the tank on the tender and the boiler head in the cab of his engine, and remained pinned in that position for forty-five or fifty minutes before he was extricated by the...