Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Layton, No. 840

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtClarke
Citation61 L.Ed. 931,243 U.S. 617,37 S.Ct. 456
PartiesLOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Lessees of Georgia Railroad & Banking Company, et al., Plffs. in Err., v. O. Y. LAYTON
Docket NumberNo. 840
Decision Date30 April 1917

243 U.S. 617
37 S.Ct. 456
61 L.Ed. 931
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Lessees of Georgia Railroad & Banking Company, et al., Plffs. in Err.,

v.

O. Y. LAYTON.

No. 840.
Argued April 11, 1917.
Decided April 30, 1917.

Page 618

Messrs. Sanders McDaniel, E. R. Black, P. H. Brewster, and H. C. Peeples for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Marion Smith for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff below was a switchman in the employ of the defendants when he suffered the injury for which he recovered the judgment which was affirmed by the supreme court of Georgia, and which is here for review on writ of error.

The facts essential to an understanding of the question presented for decision are as follows:

A train of many cars standing on a switch was separated by about two car lengths from five cars on the same track loaded with coal. An engine, pushing a stock car ahead of it, came into the switch, and failed in an attempt to couple to the five cars, but struck them with such force that, although the engine with the car attached stopped within half a car length, the five loaded cars were driven over the two intervening car lengths and struck so violently against the standing train that the plaintiff, who was on one of the five cars for the purpose of releasing the brakes, was thrown to the track, with the result that his right arm was crushed by the wheels and was amputated below the elbow.

The recovery in the case was on the first count of the petition, which alleges that the defendants were carriers of interstate commerce, and that they were negligent, among other things, in permitting the use of the car attached to the engine and of the car to which the attempt was made to couple it, without such cars being equipped

Page 619

with automatic couplers, which would couple by impact, as required by law, the claim being that if the cars had coupled when they came together, the five cars of coal would not have run down against the others, causing the shock which threw the plaintiff under the wheels.

The purpose of this allegation with respect to automatic couplers was to make applicable to the case the Georgia Employers' Liability Act, which provides that an injured employee shall not be held guilty of either contributory negligence or of having assumed the risk when the violation of any statute enacted for his safety contributed to his injury.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
146 practice notes
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...by the Boiler Inspection Act is of broader character and that the correct rule is the one laid down in Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 621, 37 S.Ct. 456, 457, 61 L.Ed. 931, which this Court has had repeated occasion to apply in connection with the Safety Appliance Acts: 'The ......
  • Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32531.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...L. Ed. 1110; Minneapolis & St. L. Railroad Co. v. Gotschall, 244 U.S. 66, 37 Sup. Ct. 597, 61 L. Ed. 995; L. & N. Railroad Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 37 Sup. Ct. 456, 61 L. Ed. 931; C., B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 559, 31 Sup. Ct. 612, 55 L. Ed. 582; St. Louis, I.M. & ......
  • Brady v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 33525.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 24, 1937
    ...263 U.S. 239, 44 Sup. Ct. 64, 68 L. Ed. 284, affirming Wolfe v. Payne, 294 Mo. 170, 241 S.W. 915; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 37 Sup. Ct. 456, 61 L. Ed. 931; Swinson v. Ry. Co., 294 U.S. 529, 55 Sup. Ct. 517, 79 L. Ed. 1041. The act imposes an absolute duty upon th......
  • Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Evans, MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 25, 1952
    ...he is injured.' Brady v. Terminal R. Ass'n, 303 U.S. 10, 16, 58 S.Ct. 426, 429, 430, 82 L.Ed. 614 (618); Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 621, 37 S.Ct. 456, 457, 61 L.Ed. 931 (933). In this case where undisputed evidence established that the train suddenly stopped because of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
146 cases
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...by the Boiler Inspection Act is of broader character and that the correct rule is the one laid down in Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 621, 37 S.Ct. 456, 457, 61 L.Ed. 931, which this Court has had repeated occasion to apply in connection with the Safety Appliance Acts: 'The ......
  • Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32531.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...L. Ed. 1110; Minneapolis & St. L. Railroad Co. v. Gotschall, 244 U.S. 66, 37 Sup. Ct. 597, 61 L. Ed. 995; L. & N. Railroad Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 37 Sup. Ct. 456, 61 L. Ed. 931; C., B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 559, 31 Sup. Ct. 612, 55 L. Ed. 582; St. Louis, I.M. & ......
  • Brady v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 33525.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 24, 1937
    ...263 U.S. 239, 44 Sup. Ct. 64, 68 L. Ed. 284, affirming Wolfe v. Payne, 294 Mo. 170, 241 S.W. 915; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 37 Sup. Ct. 456, 61 L. Ed. 931; Swinson v. Ry. Co., 294 U.S. 529, 55 Sup. Ct. 517, 79 L. Ed. 1041. The act imposes an absolute duty upon th......
  • Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Evans, MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 25, 1952
    ...he is injured.' Brady v. Terminal R. Ass'n, 303 U.S. 10, 16, 58 S.Ct. 426, 429, 430, 82 L.Ed. 614 (618); Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U.S. 617, 621, 37 S.Ct. 456, 457, 61 L.Ed. 931 (933). In this case where undisputed evidence established that the train suddenly stopped because of ......
  • 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