Herdman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co
| Decision Date | 25 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 46,46 |
| Citation | 352 U.S. 518,1 L.Ed.2d 508,77 S.Ct. 455 |
| Parties | Virgil HERDMAN, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Donald S. McNamara, Columbus, Ohio, for the petitioner.
Mr. John Eckler, Columbus, Ohio, for the respondent.
In this Federal Employers' Liability Act1 case, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which was entered on a directed verdict in favor of the respondent. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that there was a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion of negligence. 2 This Court granted certiorari to determine whether the petitioner was erroneously deprived of a jury determination of his case.3
The petitioner was the conductor in charge of a 67-car freight train which on February 1, 1951, was en route from Richmond, Indiana, to Columbus, Ohio. He was in the caboose at the end of the train when it came to a sudden stop about three miles before a scheduled stop in Dayton, Ohio. He brought this action for damages for injuries allegedly suffered from a fall in the caboose which occurred when the train stopped. He testified: 'Well, we were coming through there at a slow like speed and I don't know what went wrong, the train went in emergency and threw me into this table and tore it up and I was up on the floor with my flagman on top of me, when we finally got straightened up.' He immediately left the caboose and satisfied himself that the stop was not caused by a mechanical failure of the braking equipment, but rather that the engineer had applied the brakes to bring the train to a stop. At the end of the run, he filed his routine conductor's report of the incident. He read that report into the record, without objection, during his cross-examination. The report states: He also stated that the engineer had told him that there were school children in the automobile. There was no evidence that the stop was made with any special or unusual severity.
The sole issue raised is whether a jury question was presented by the evidence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. We agree with the lower courts that a jury question of negligence was not presented by the proofs. The proofs do not meet the tests laid down by this Court in Jesionowski v. Boston & M.R. Co., 329 U.S. 452, 67 S.Ct. 401, 91 L.Ed. 416. The employee's injuries in the Jesionows...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
... ... City of New York, 315 U.S. 752, 62 S.Ct. 854, 88 L.Ed. 1166; Schulz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 350 U.S. 523, 76 S.Ct. 608, 100 L.Ed. 668, could conclude that petitioner had been ... 'The Federal Employers' Liability Act gives to railroad employees a somewhat liberalized right of recovery for injuries on the job. A great number of cases ... ...
-
Rankin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
...of the case to a jury. Webb v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 352 U.S. 512, 77 S.Ct. 451, 1 L.Ed.2d 503; Herdman v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 352 U.S. 518, 77 S.Ct. 455, 1 L.Ed.2d 508; Moore v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 358 U.S. 31, 79 S.Ct. 2, 3 L.Ed.2d 25. See Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.......
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Co Herdman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
-
Green v. River Terminal Ry. Co.
...See Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U.S. 521, 523, 77 S.Ct. 457, 458, 1 L.Ed.2d 511 (1957); Herdman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 518, 77 S.Ct. 455, 1 L.Ed.2d 508 (1957); Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 512, 516, 77 S.Ct. 451, 454, 1 L.Ed.2d 503 (1957); Mendo......