Davis v. Kennedy
| Decision Date | 17 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 85,85 |
| Citation | 69 L.Ed. 212,45 S.Ct. 33,266 U.S. 147 |
| Parties | DAVIS, Agent, v. KENNEDY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Fitzgerald Hall, of Nashville, Tenn., for petitioner.
Messrs. W. E. Norvell, Jr., and F. M. Bass, both of Nashville, Tenn., for respondent.
This is an action under the Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, § 1, 35 Stat. 65 (Comp. St. § 8657), brought by the administratrix of David Kennedy to recover damages for his death upon a railroad while under federal control. The death was caused by a collision between two trains called No. 1 and No. 4, west of a point known as Shops which was two and a half miles west of Nashville, Tennessee. The tracks were double from Nashville to Shops but after that the track was single. No. 1, bound for Nashville, had the right of way, and the crew of No. 4, bound westward, had instructions never to pass Shops unless they knew as a fact that No. 1 had passed it. Kennedy was the engineer of No. 4. The conductor had told him that the train was crowded and had asked him to look out for No. 1, which Kennedy agreed to do. He ran his train on beyond Shops however and the collision occurred.
The trial was in a Court of the State of Tennessee, and the plaintiff got, a judgment which was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State on the ground that the other members of the crew as well as the engineer were bound to look out for the approaching train and that their negligence contributed as a proximate cause to the engineer's death. We are of opinion that this was error. It was the personal duty of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
...v. Matthews, 263 U.S. 686, 44 S.Ct. 179, 68 L.Ed. 506;* affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. 1924 Term. Davis v. Kennedy, 266 U.S. 147, 45 S.Ct. 33, 69 L.Ed. 212; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521, 45 S.Ct. 169, 69 L.Ed. 419; affirm......
-
Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
...unaffected by and independent of any negligence of appellant. Ry. Co. v. Wiles, 240 U.S. 444; Frese v. Railroad Co., 263 U.S. 1; Davis v. Kennedy, 266 U.S. 147. (4) The purpose for which deceased alighted from the train, if he did so, was known only to him. He did not, by word or act, indic......
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Grizzard
... ... negligence, in the production of the injury, does not defeat ... the cause of action, but only lessens the damages." ... Davis v. Sorrell, 213 Ala. 191, 104 So. 397, 399 ... But ... plaintiff had control and management of his engine, and its ... proper control ... relation to the movement had done more. This is the rule ... applied in the federal decisions ( Davis v. Kennedy, ... 266 U.S. 147, 45 S.Ct. 33, 69 L.Ed. 212; Unadilla Valley ... R. Co. v. Caldine, 278 U.S. 139, 49 S.Ct. 91, 73 L.Ed ... 224; Great ... ...
-
Good v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co.
...Valley Ry. Co. v. Caldine, 278 U.S. 139, 73 L. Ed. 225; Frese, Admx., v. Railroad Co., 263 U.S. 1, 68 L. Ed. 131; Davis v. Kennedy, 266 U.S. 147, 69 L. Ed. 212; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Wiles, 240 U.S. 444, 36 Sup. Ct. 406, 60 L. Ed. 732. (4) Under the Federal rule an employee, in entering......