Garrett v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Company

Citation35 S.Ct. 32,235 U.S. 308,59 L.Ed. 242
Decision Date30 November 1914
Docket NumberNo. 81,81
PartiesC. W. GARRETT, Administrator of T. W. Lewis, Jr., Deceased, Plff. in Err., v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. John A. Pitts and H. N. Leech for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 309 intentionally omitted] 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 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' liability act of 1908 (before amendment of April 5, 1910 [36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1324]), the administrator of one who died of painful injuries suffered while employed in interstate commerce by a railroad engaging therein can recover damages for the benefit of the estate (third count); and, second, whether, if such administrator sue for the benefit of the employee's parents, there being no surviving widow or husband or child, it is necessary to allege facts or circumstances tending to show that, as a result of the death, they suffered pecuniary loss (first and second counts).

The nature of the rights and responsibilities arising out of this act has been discussed and determined in four opinions announced by this court since the instant cause was decided by the circuit court of appeals. Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 57 L. ed. 417, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176; American R. Co. v. Didricksen, 227 U. S. 145, 57 L. ed. 456, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 228 U. S. 173, 57 L. ed. 785, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426, 3 N. C. C. A. 806; North Carolina R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248, 58 L. ed. 591, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 159. It is now definitely settled that the act...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Hogarty v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 9, 1916
    ...with their evidence, and not be taken by surprise. . . ." The principle just quoted is a correct statement of a general rule; but if, in the Garrett case, defendant had, as in the case at bar, expressly admitted on the record, during the course of the presentation of the plaintiffs' evidenc......
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • January 14, 1930
    ......Jolly, deceased, against. the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment adverse. to defendant, and it appeals. ... double wrong." Cf. Garrett v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 235 U.S. 308, 35 S.Ct. 32, 59 L.Ed. 242. . ......
  • The Erie Lighter 108
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 16, 1918
    ...... petitioner, a common carrier by railroad, on one of its boats. which was then being used for that ... (Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 235. U.S. 308, 313, 35 ......
  • Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 22, 1917
    ......149, 35 Stat. 65, against the railway. company for negligently causing the death of the. plaintiff's ... freight train on a run on the defendant's railroad from. Nicetown to Belmont. Over the tracks of this run ... and suffering endured by the decedent. Garrett v. L. &. N.R. Co., 235 U.S. 308, 35 Sup.Ct. 32, 59 L.Ed. ......
  • 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