Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company v. Thomas Brown
Decision Date | 10 June 1913 |
Docket Number | No. 230,230 |
Citation | 33 S.Ct. 840,57 L.Ed. 1204,229 U.S. 317 |
Parties | CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. THOMAS W. BROWN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. M. L. Bell and F. C. Dillard for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James C. McShane for defendant in error.
Error to review a judgment of the circuit court of appeals, affirming a judgment of the circuit court for the northern district of Illinois for $8,000, in an action brought by Brown, defendant in error, against the railway company, for injuries received by him while working as a switchman in the railway company's yards at Chicago.
The action was brought in the state court, and removed on the petition of the railway company to the Federal court.
The first count of the declaration is based upon a violation of the safety appliance act, and it also contains allegations based upon the employers' liability act. The company was engaged and Brown was employed in interstate commerce. The fourth count charges negligence in failing to fill up the space between a running rail and a guard rail, in which space Brown's foot caught, where it was run over and his leg cut off.
The case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict for $8,000 for Brown upon two counts: (a) for a violation of the safety-appliance law, (b) common-law negligence in not blocking the switches. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, which was subsequently affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 107 C. C. A. 300, 183 Fed. 80.
For the purpose of the contentions which are made here, the following facts must be accepted to be established, as summarized in the opinion of the circuit court of appeals:
These being the facts, the railway company asserts error in the trial court in not directing a verdict for the company, on the ground (1) that Brown, in leaning between the cars while they were in motion, was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and (2) in instructing the jury, in effect, that Brown was not chargeable with contributory negligence by the mere fact of going between the cars.
The contentions are resolvable into one, and may be said to be covered by the charge to the jury which the railway company attacks. The court, after stating that the first count of the declaration is based on the failure of the company to equip the car with such a coupling device as that it could be operated without the switchman going...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schuppenies v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
... ... OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of Idaho ... 558, 60 L.Ed. 1030; ... Ciebattone v. Chicago Great West. Ry. Co., 146 Minn. 362, 178 ... N.W ... 638; ... Charleston & W. C. R. Co. v. Brown, 113 Ga.App. 744, ... 79 S.E. 932; Horton v ... 15, 66 C. C. A. 216; Millen ... v. Pacific Bridge Co., 51 Ore. 538, 95 P. 196; ... ( ... La Mere v. Railway Transfer Co. , 125 Minn. 159, Ann ... Cas ... ...
-
Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...the cars, sustains the charge of violation of the Safety Appliance Act. 45 U.S.C.A., secs. 1-8, 51-59; C., R.I. & P. Railroad Co. v. Brown, 229 U.S. 317, 33 Sup. Ct. 840, 57 L. Ed. 1204; San Antonio & A.P. Railroad Co. v. Wagner, 241 U.S. 476, 36 Sup. Ct. 626, 60 L. Ed. 1110; Minneapolis & ......
-
McAllister v. Terminal Railway Co.
...of a coupler to work at any time sustains a charge of negligence. [Atlantic City Railroad Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 56; Chicago etc. Railroad Co. v. Brown, 229 U.S. 317; Chicago, etc. Railroad Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 559; St. Louis etc. Railroad Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281.] In Philade......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett
... ... Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff for $25,000, ... Thomas, all of ... Birmingham, for appellant ... of statutory duty in the premises ( Chicago, ... etc., Co. v. Brown, 229 U.S. 317, 33 S.Ct ... an interstate railway carrier under the federal ... Employers' ... ...