Chicago Junction Railway Company v. William King

• Decision Date: 11 December 1911
• Docket Number: No. 34,34
• Citation: 56 L.Ed. 173,222 U.S. 222,32 S.Ct. 79
• Parties: CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM R. KING
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

222 U.S. 222

32 S.Ct. 79

56 L.Ed. 173

CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v WILLIAM R. KING.

No. 34.

Argued and submitted November 2 and 3, 1911.

Decided December 11, 1911.

Messrs.John D. Black and John Barton Payne for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James C. McShane for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

This action to recover for personal injuries, begun in a state court, was removed to a circuit court and there decided for the plaintiff. To obtain a reversal of a judgment affirming, the case is here upon an assumption that a constitutional question is involved which gives jurisdiction. It is admitted that such question, that is, the repugnancy of the safety appliance law to the Constitution, is now not open to controversy because of a recent decision. Southern R. Co. v. United States, not yet reported. 222 U. S. 20, 56 L. ed. 72, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2. Yet, as the case is here, other errors relied upon, it is urged, must be decided. But even conceding that the constitutional question was not wholly frivolous when first advanced, as it arose only at the trial, it does not give jurisdiction. Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, 53 L. ed. 801, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490. But this is negligible, since, by the pleadings, the cause of action was based on a statute of the United States—the safety appliance law—which gives jurisdiction. Macfadden v. United States, supra. The damage thus arose: After cutting out some cars from an interstate freight train at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago, the train could not be re-coupled because of a broken knuckle on the coupler of one of the cars. The plaintiff, a switchman, secured a new knuckle, and going between the cars to put it in place of the broken one, was crushed by a backward movement of the train, which brought the uncoupled cars together. The movement was ordered by the train conductor with the purpose of shoving the train back several city blocks to where it was proposed to repair the coupler.

Coming to consider the contentions, although they seemingly involve many propositions, they all are reducible to the assertion that the plaintiff was so clearly guilty of contributory negligence, in one aspect or the other, that it was the duty of the court to instruct a verdict for the defendant. Indeed, this is expressly stated in the argument to be the result of all the propositions except two, relating to an instruction given and to one refused. But these ...