Garrett v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Company, No. 81
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McReynolds |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 32,235 U.S. 308,59 L.Ed. 242 |
| Parties | C. W. GARRETT, Administrator of T. W. Lewis, Jr., Deceased, Plff. in Err., v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Docket Number | No. 81 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1914 |
v.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY.
Page 309
Messrs. John A. Pitts and H. N. Leech for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 309 intentionally omitted]
Page 310
Mr. John B. Keeble for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:
This action for damages under the employers' liability act, approved April 22, 1908 (35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1322), was originally brought in the state court March 31, 1910. It was removed to the circuit court of the United States, middle district of Tennessee, and tried there in May, 1911. The declaration contains three counts, each of which
Page 311
alleges that plaintiff is the administrator of T. W. Lewis, Jr., by appointment of the county court, Stewart county, Tennessee; defendant is a Kentucky railroad corporation engaged in interstate commerce; in September, 1909, the deceased was employed as a brakeman on one of its freight trains moving in such commerce; through negligence of its operatives and servants a collision occurred; in an effort to save his life he was caught under the engine and held there for six hours or more, suffering intense agony and pain, followed shortly by death; he was twenty-four years of age, strong, vigorous, with fine business qualifications and earning capacity. The first and second counts allege that the deceased left surviving T. W. Lewis, his father, and Mrs. T. W. Lewis, his mother, and that 'plaintiff, as administrator of the said intestate, sues the defendant, for the benefit of his parents, in the sum of $50,000 damages.' The third count alleges the survival of not only father and mother, but also brothers and sisters (the names of the latter not being given), and that 'plaintiff, as administrator of the said decedent, sues the defendant in the sum of $50,000 damages.'
The trial judge, having definitely offered the plaintiff on opportunity to amend his declaration, which was declined, excluded all evidence relating to the mental and physical suffering of the deceased, and also all tending to show pecuniary loss sustained by the parents; and then peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict for defendant. The United States circuit court of appeals tendered a further opportunity to amend, and, when this was rejected, affirmed the judgment of the trial court (117 C. C. A. 109, 197 Fed. 715, 3 N. C. C. A. 769). The cause is here upon writ of error.
The questions presented are: First, whether, under the employers'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dugas v. National Aircraft Corporation, No. 18873
...child, pecuniary loss must be alleged and proved." 169 F.2d 622, 624 (6th Cir. 1948); see Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 235 U.S. 308, 312-313, 35 S.Ct. 32, 59 L.Ed. 242 (1914); Renaldi v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 230 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1956) (award of $30,00......
-
The Erie Lighter 108
...separation, as is required in a case where the beneficiaries are the parents of an adult son (Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 235 U.S. 308, 313, 35 Sup.Ct. 32, 59 [250 F. 499.] L.Ed. 242), or a married daughter residing with and maintained by her husband (Gulf, Colorado, etc., R......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett, 6 Div. 322
...33 S.Ct. 224, 57 L.Ed. 456; K.C.S.R. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U.S. 599, 35 S.Ct. 844, 59 L.Ed. 1478; Garrett v. L. & N.R. Co., 235 U.S. 314, 35 S.Ct. 32, 59 L.Ed. 245; Shewalter v. C.C. & O.R. Co., 239 60, 36 S.Ct. 166, 60 L.Ed. 476. This is not a double recovery sought by the administratrix. In ......
-
Hogarty v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.
...case was within the federal statute, and proof of this was a material part of it. In Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 235 U. S. 308, 35 Sup. Ct. 32, 59 L. Ed. 242, which was an action for damages under the federal Employers' Liability Act, the plaintiff sought to recover ......
-
Dugas v. National Aircraft Corporation, No. 18873
...child, pecuniary loss must be alleged and proved." 169 F.2d 622, 624 (6th Cir. 1948); see Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 235 U.S. 308, 312-313, 35 S.Ct. 32, 59 L.Ed. 242 (1914); Renaldi v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 230 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1956) (award of $30,00......
-
The Erie Lighter 108
...separation, as is required in a case where the beneficiaries are the parents of an adult son (Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 235 U.S. 308, 313, 35 Sup.Ct. 32, 59 [250 F. 499.] L.Ed. 242), or a married daughter residing with and maintained by her husband (Gulf, Colorado, etc., R......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett, 6 Div. 322
...33 S.Ct. 224, 57 L.Ed. 456; K.C.S.R. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U.S. 599, 35 S.Ct. 844, 59 L.Ed. 1478; Garrett v. L. & N.R. Co., 235 U.S. 314, 35 S.Ct. 32, 59 L.Ed. 245; Shewalter v. C.C. & O.R. Co., 239 60, 36 S.Ct. 166, 60 L.Ed. 476. This is not a double recovery sought by the administratrix. In ......
-
Hogarty v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.
...case was within the federal statute, and proof of this was a material part of it. In Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 235 U. S. 308, 35 Sup. Ct. 32, 59 L. Ed. 242, which was an action for damages under the federal Employers' Liability Act, the plaintiff sought to recover ......