Hartel v. Long Island Railroad Company
Decision Date | 23 October 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72-1578,72-1578 |
Citation | 414 U.S. 980,94 S.Ct. 273,38 L.Ed.2d 224 |
Parties | Audrey S. HARTEL, etc. v. The LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Petitioner's husband, a ticket agent of the respondent railroad, was required to open the ticket office of the Mineola, Long Island, station in the early hours of a Sunday morning. In order to open the steel shutter covering the ticket window it was necessary to leave the security of the ticket office and enter the passenger waiting room. Since there was no peephole in the shutter or in the door leading to the waiting room, there was no way for the agent to view the waiting room from the ticket office. Upon entering the waiting room, petitioner's husband encountered armed robbers who shot and killed him. Petitioner brought this suit to recover damages under the Federal Employer's Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.
In Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U.S. 459, 68 S.Ct. 140, 92 L.Ed. 73, this Court held that the Act provides relief for breach by a railroad of its duty to protect employees from foreseeable third party assaults. In order to demonstrate foreseeability in this case, petitioner offered to prove 10 robberies or attempted robberies at respondent's stations located between five and 30 miles of the Mineola station. All had occurred within four years and two occurred in the month immediately preceding the Mineola holdup. Petitioner further offered to prove communications between the ticket agent's union and respondent relating the dangers of armed robbery and requesting the installation of peepholes and silent alarms. Since none of the prior robberies occurred at the Mineola station and none of the union communications made specific reference to the dangers at that particular station, the evidence was excluded.
After finding that petitioner had 'introduced no evidence showing that [respondent] should have reasonably foreseen the possibility of a holdup at the Mineola Station,' the District Court granted respondent's motion for a directed verdict.
As this Court has repeatedly pointed out, Congress expressed a strong preference for jury determinations of actions arising under the Act. See Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 508, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rodriquez
... ... problems connected with posthypnotic testimony, so long as the evidence is not a post-hypnotic statement of the ... ...
-
People v. Bladel
... ... Testimony at trial revealed that three railroad employees were shot to death on December 31, 1978, at the ... See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300, fn. 4, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689, ... after a defendant requests counsel at arraignment, as long as the defendant is willing to waive his Sixth Amendment ... ...
-
Bethea v. United Stated
... ... , D.C.App., 358 A.2d 335 (1976), concluded that the long established corroboration requirement in rape cases should ... ...
-
U.S. v. Davis
... ... ), he is not guilty of constructive possession so long as he treats the drugs as belonging to the roommate and has ... ...
-
Criminal responsibility in the age of "mind-reading".
...at the time he engaged in the proscribed conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 486 F.2d 1139, 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 980 (1973) (explaining that even if the heroin addict defendant was under the compulsion of his addiction at the time he was arrested for possess......
-
The Constitutionality of Involuntary Civil Commitment of Opiate Addicts
...that program.7656JOURNALOFDRUGISSUES CONSTITUTIONALITY9See, for example,UnitedStatesv.Moore,486 F. 2d 1139(D. C. Cir.),certioraridenied414 U. S. 980 (1973) (see the opinions of Judges WilkeyandLeventhal).Thereason given for this, of course, is that use is conduct.10Amongthose troubled was M......