Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Williams

Decision Date26 April 1921
Docket Number3666.
Citation272 F. 439
PartiesLOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO. v. WILLIAMS.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

E. H Randolph, of Shreveport, La., for plaintiff in error.

S. P Jones, of Marshall, Tex., and W. P. Hall, of Shreveport, La for defendant in error.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.

KING Circuit Judge.

R. E Williams was the roadmaster of the Louisiana Railway & Navigation Company (hereinafter styled the railway), a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce. His duties required him, among other things, to supervise the keeping in repair of the track of said railway for use in interstate commerce. While engaged in his duties as such roadmaster in supervising said work, and also at the same time in making an inventory of the property and material on said right of way, traveling upon a hand car furnished him by said railway for use in connection with his work, the hand car was derailed by plank which had been placed by certain persons between the rails at a private crossing in order to enable them to haul with teams over said crossing. Williams was thrown from the hand car by its derailment; one of his legs was broken, and finally amputated between the ankle and knee. He brought suit under the federal employers' liability statute. 35 Stat. 65, c. 149 (Comp. Sts. 8657). The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $13,750. Upon plaintiff agreeing that judgment be entered for the sum of $12,000, a motion for a new trial was denied and judgment for $12,000 was entered in his favor.

At the conclusion of the testimony for the plaintiff a motion was made to direct a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that plaintiff's testimony showed he was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time he was injured. The court thereupon permitted plaintiff to reopen his case, and plaintiff thereupon testified that at the time of his injury he was engaged in his duties of supervision of the construction and repair forces on said road as roadmaster, and was discharging such duties at the same time when making said inventory.

The errors assigned are: (1) The refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant at the close of plaintiff's testimony. (2) Allowing plaintiff to reopen his case and testify further as to the nature of his employment at the time of the accident. (3) The refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant at the close of the entire testimony. (4) The refusal to give in charge a request of the defendant. (5) The refusal to grant a new trial.

1. The defendant having introduced testimony after the refusal of the court to direct a verdict at the close of the plaintiff's testimony, no error can be now assigned to such refusal. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stephens, 218 F. 535, 542, 134 C.C.A. 263; International Lumber Co. v. United States, 231 F. 873, 875, 146 C.C.A. 69.

2. The matter of reopening the testimony was entirely in the discretion of the court. The defendant had not offered any testimony at the time, and it is not shown that he was in any wise prejudiced by the reopening of the case. We therefore find no error in this action of the court.

3. The court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant at the conclusion of the entire testimony, on the ground that the evidence showed, without conflict, that at the time of the accident Williams was not engaged in interstate commerce, but in the exclusive business of taking an inventory of materials lying on the property of the road all of which is in the state of Louisiana. Even if it be conceded that, had Williams been exclusively engaged in taking such inventory, he would not have been employed in interstate commerce, in our opinion, the work of Williams as roadmaster, in supervising the keeping in repair of said track of said railway engaged in interstate commerce, constituted an employment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Moser v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 25 d5 Fevereiro d5 1944
    ... ... 1045; Philadelphia B. & W. R. Co. v ... Smith , 250 U.S. 101, 63 L.Ed. 869; Louisiana Ry. & ... Nav. Co. v. Williams , (5 Cir.) 272 F. 439.) ... The ... amendment of August ... ...
  • Lloyd v. Alton R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 1 d1 Novembro d1 1943
    ...to be practically a part of it", citing Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Nixon, 271 U.S. 218, 46 S.Ct. 495, 70 L.Ed. 914; Louisiana R. & N. Co. v. Williams (C. C. A.), 272 F. 439; Sells A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 266 Mo. 155, 181 S.W. 106; 2 Roberts' Federal Liability of Carriers, 1485, Sec. 774. "It......
  • Kepner v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 27 d3 Março d3 1929
    ... ... Pickenpaugh, 118 S.W. 453; McMillan v. Ball, ... 177 S.W. 315; Nodaway Co. v. Williams, 199 S.W. 224; ... Scanlan v. Bd. of Directors, 245 Ill.App. 354. (4) ... When engines coming ... v. Puckett, 244 U.S. 571; Erie Railroad ... Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 81; Ry. & Nav. Co. v ... Williams, 272 F. 439; Ry. Co. v. Contois (Tex. Com ... App.), certiorari denied, ... ...
  • Gidley v. Chicago Short Line Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 2 d3 Dezembro d3 1931
    ...S. Ct. 345, 62 L. Ed. 544;Industrial Com. of California v. Payne, 259 U. S. 182, 42 S. Ct. 489, 66 L. Ed. 888;Louisiana Railway & Navigation Co. v. Williams (C. C. A.) 272 F. 439;Id., 257 U. S. 610, 42 S. Ct. 48, 66 L. Ed. 396;Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Co. v. Smith, 250 ......
  • 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