Chesapeake Ry Co v. Kuhn

Decision Date23 November 1931
Docket NumberNos. 34,35,s. 34
Citation76 L.Ed. 157,52 S.Ct. 45,284 U.S. 44
PartiesCHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. KUHN (two cases)
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Henry Bannon, of Portsmouth, Ohio, and David H. Leake, of Richmond, Va., for petitioner.

Messrs. Homer H. Marshman, of Youngstown, Ohio, and George D. Nye, of Waverly, Ohio, for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

While employed in interstated commerce as a section hand by petitioner, an interstate carrier (Acts April 22, 1908, 35 Stat. 65, April 5, 1910, chap. 143, 36 Stat. 291, U. S. Code, title 45, chap. 2 (45 USCA §§ 51-59)), William Kuhn suffered serious injury. Thereafter he sued the company for damages in the court of common pleas, Pike county, Ohio. He alleged that the accident resulted from its negligence in the following matters: Ordering him to use a defective sledge hammer and chisel; failing to promulgate and enforce proper rules concerning the upkeep of tools ordinarily used, to furnish guards or goggles for workmen's eyes, to provide a reasonably safe place for him to work.

The Company denied negligence. It also set up in defense that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk incident to his employment. At the trial it duly, but unsuccessfully, requested a directed verdict because of such assumption.

The jury returned a verdict for the respondent. Judgment upon this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court denied a review. This Court allowed writs of certiorari both to the Supreme Court, No. 34 and the Court of Appeals, No. 35. The cause is properly here on the latter writ. No. 34 will be dismissed.

On the day of the accident, February 9, 1926, William Kuhn, an experienced section hand 54 years old, was engaged with others in repairing a side track leading from petitioner's main line to a steam shovel. It became necessary to remove two steel rails and shorten them some six or eight inches. They were first laid on the ground and then cut with a cold chisel. One man held the chisel while respondent and two others, acting in turn, struck it with a heavy hammer. None of them wore goggles; none asked for goggles or objected to the method of operation. The first rail had been severed; work had begun on the second. While respondent was standing by awaiting his turn to strike, a steel chip from the chisel or rail struck and destoryed his eye. On other occasions he had assisted in cutting steel rails when goggles were used and he knew chips would fly during such an operation. 'That was the value of goggles,' he testified. He understood the dangers incident to the undertaking. The job was a hurry-up one. The assistant foreman in charge had told the men 'to gang up and go in a hurry, that he wanted to get through there.' 'Don't be afraid.'

We think the evidence clearly discloses that Kuhn's injury resulted from the ordinary hazards of his employment, which he fully understood, and voluntarily assumed. There was no complaint, no promise by his superior to mitigate the obvious dangers. The trial judge should have directed a verdict for the railway company.

In cases like this, where damages are claimed under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59),...

To continue reading

Request your trial
133 cases
  • Roberts v. Csx Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 15 janvier 2010
    ...St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Dickerson, 470 U.S. 409, 411, 105 S.Ct. 1347, 84 L.Ed.2d 303 (1985); see Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kuhn, 284 U.S. 44, 46-47, 52 S.Ct. 45, 76 L.Ed. 157 (1931) ("[I]n proceedings under [FELA], wherever brought, the rights and obligations of the parties depend upon ......
  • Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 25 février 1957
    ...v. Powe, 283 U.S. 401, 51 S.Ct. 498, 75 L.Ed. 1142; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff reversed. 1931 Term. Chesapeake & O.R. Co. v. Kuhn, 284 U.S. 44, 52 S.Ct. 45, 76 L.Ed. 157; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Saxon, 284 U.S. 458, 52 S.Ct. 229,......
  • Urie v. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 31 mai 1949
    ...13 Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U.S. 350, 352, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 1063, 1064, 87 L.Ed. 1444; Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Kuhn, 284 U.S. 44, 46—47, 52 S.Ct. 45, 46, 76 L.Ed. 157; St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. McWhirter, 229 U.S. 265, 277, 33 S.Ct. 858, 862, 863, 57 L.Ed. 1179; Second Em......
  • Cantley v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 5 septembre 1944
    ...State courts, constitute the supreme law on questions arising under the Federal Employers' Liability act. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Kuhn, 284 U.S. 44, 47, 52 S. Ct. 45, 76 L. Ed. 157. The writer has experienced considerable hesitancy in reaching the stated conclusion and some apprehension ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT