Chicago Great Western Co v. Rambo

Decision Date27 April 1936
Docket NumberNo. 696,696
Citation298 U.S. 99,80 L.Ed. 1066,56 S.Ct. 693
PartiesCHICAGO GREAT WESTERN R. CO. v. RAMBO. *
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Harry S. Stearns, of St. Paul, Minn., for petitioner.

Mr. Harold E. Stassen, of South St. Paul, Minn., for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.

Half an hour after sunset (5:10), December 8, 1933, respondent's intestate, a signal maintainer, while riding his gasoline speeder over the rails, was run down and killed 3 miles south of Hampton, Minn., by petitioner's passenger train from Minneapolis, moving down grade 60 miles per hour. Darkness had come; the weather was cloudy; the train late; an hour earlier it had collided with a truck and killed a man.

Relying upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. c. 2, §§ 51-59, and the Boiler Inspection Act as amended by Act June 7, 1924, 45 U.S.C.A. c. 1, §§ 22-34, respondent sued for damages in Dakota county district court. The jury found for her; judgment upon the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Several acts of negligence were alleged, but the trial court submitted only one to the jury: Failure to equip the locomotive with a headlight of the illuminating power required by federal law.

Section 23 of the Boiler Inspection Act is in the margin.1 Under permission of that act, the Interstate Commerce Commission adopted the following rule:

'129. Each locomotive used in road service between sunset and sunrise shall have a headlight which shall afford sufficient illumination to enable a person in the cab of such locomotive who possesses the usual visual capacity required of locomotive enginemen to see in a clear atmosphere, a dark object as large as a man of average size standing erect at a distance of at least 800 feet ahead and in front of such headlight; and such headlight must be maintained in good condition.'

The Supreme Court declared: 'Since there was no motion for new trial, the assignments of error reach only the question whether there is any substantial evidence in support of the judgment. As stated, the sole act of negligence upon which the jury could base a recovery under the charge of the court was a violation of the quoted rule as to headlight; and, if defendant was negligent in that respect, is there sufficient evidence that the deficient headlight was the proximate cause of Rambo's death? The quantum of proof must measure up to the rule clearly and adequately stated in Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521, 45 S.Ct. 169, 69 L.Ed. 419.' It held the evidence adequate.

In cases like this we must examine the record and determine for ourselves whether as matter of law there is enough to sustain a finding of negligence. Chicago, M. & St. Paul R. Co. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 472, 474, 46 S.Ct. 564, 70 L.Ed. 1041; Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Saxon, 284 U.S. 458, 459, 52 S.Ct. 229, 76 L.Ed. 397.

The following excerpt from its opinion indicates the view of the Supreme Court.

'It is true that there is direct proof that the headlight was inspected at the time the locomotive was attached to the train in Minneapolis and when it arrived at its destination at Oelwein, Iowa, and that it then satisfied the requirement of rule 129; also, that it was burning brightly when the train passed Hampton and shortly after the accident, when the chief electrician of defendant, who happened to be on the train, having walked to the front thereof when the emergency stop was made, ascertained, and so testified at the trial, that the track ahead was illuminated properly for more than 800 feet. But this notwithstanding, we think there are facts testified to which authorized the jury in finding that the headlight did not comply with the standard fixed under the Federal Boiler Inspection Act. Most persuasive of this is the testimony of the engineer himself, who testified that he was watching the straight track ahead but could see no object thereon until he was within 500 feet of what he took to be a couple of dogs, and not until he came 100 or more feet nearer could he make out that it was a man on a speeder. There is no suggestion that the engineer did not have the visual capacity required of locomotive engineers. The fact that Rambo was seen to make no move to leave the speeder indicates that the headlight did not cast its rays sufficiently around where he was so as to give warning of the approach of the train. There is evidence to show that a person on a running speeder can quickly and without great danger swing himself clear of the rails. Then there is the testimony of a fifteen year old lad, who lived adjacent to the track where Rambo was run down and who witnessed the accident, that while he heard a speeder coming he could not see it until the train which he heard and saw approaching came within about 100 feet of the speeder, when the headlight disclosed its presence to him, and that when he heard the blasts of the whistle and saw the sparks from the application of the brakes the locomotive was less than 50 feet from the speeder. It is thought that the testimony of the engineer that the illumination of the headlight was so deficient that he could not ascertain what the object ahead of him on the track was until he was within 300 feet thereof, corroborated by the fact that the rays of light were not sufficient to arouse the attention of Rambo to the presence of the locomotive, and the testimony of the lad who witnessed the accident standing a few rods from the track, that he, although knowing that both train and speeder were approaching, could not see the speeder until the headlight was within 100 feet thereof, justify the jury in finding that the headlight did not comply with the requirements of the Federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 25 Febrero 1957
    ...M. & O.R. Co., 294 U.S. 529, 55 S.Ct. 517, 79 L.Ed. 1041; directed verdict for defendant reversed. 1935 Term. Chicago G.W.R. Co. v. Rambo, 298 U.S. 99, 56 S.Ct. 693, 80 L.Ed. 1066; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff 1938 Term. Great Northern R. Co. v. Leonidas, 305 U.S. 1, 59 S.Ct. 51, 83......
  • New Orleans & N.E. R. Co. v. Benson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 10 Octubre 1938
    ... ... Co. v. Saxon, 284 U.S. 458, 76 L.Ed. 397; C. G. & ... W. R. Co. v. Rambo, 298 U.S. 99, 80 L.Ed. 1066; ... Universal Co. v. Taylor, 178 Miss. 143, ... ...
  • Correia v. Van Camp Sea Food Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Septiembre 1952
    ...U.S. 90, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Southern Ry. Co. v. Walters, 284 U.S. 190, 52 S.Ct. 58, 76 L.Ed. 239; Chicago G. W. R. Co. v. Rambo, 298 U.S. 99, 56 S.Ct. 693, 80 L.Ed. 1066. The evidence produced to show that negligence on the part of the carrier was the proximate cause of the acciden......
  • Cunningham v. Boston & M.R.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 28 Mayo 1940
    ...L.Ed. 1041;Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad v. Wells, 275 U.S. 455, 457, 48 S.Ct. 151, 72 L.Ed. 370;Chicago Great Western Railroad v. Rambo, 298 U.S. 99, 101, 56 S.Ct. 693, 80 L.Ed. 1066. And we assume that the rule has not been affected by the decision in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304......
  • 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