New Orleans Co v. Scarlet

• Decision Date: 21 April 1919
• Docket Number: No. 242,242
• Citation: 63 L.Ed. 752,249 U.S. 528,39 S.Ct. 369
• Parties: NEW ORLEANS & N. E. R. CO. et al. v. SCARLET
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

249 U.S. 528

39 S.Ct. 369

63 L.Ed. 752

NEW ORLEANS & N. E. R. CO. et al.

v SCARLET.

No. 242.

Argued and Submitted March 18, 1919.

Decided April 21, 1919.

Messrs. J. Blanc Monroe, of New Orleans, La., Albert S. Bozeman, of Meridian, Miss., Monte M. Lemann, of New Orleans, La and H. O'B. Cooper, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Thomas G. Fewell, of Meridian, Miss., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Scarlet was a fireman on the New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad. While engaged in the performance of his duties he was injured by being thrown down between the engine and the tender. The accident was caused by the uncoupling of engine and tender; and this was apparently due to the breaking of the king pin, which fastened the drawbar to the tender, and the breaking of the coupling chains between engine and tender. He brought suit in a state court of Mississippi under the federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 (Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665), and the Boiler Inspection Act of February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913 (Comp. St. §§ 8630-8639), as amended by the Act of March 4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192 (Comp. St. §§ 8639a-8639d), and recovered judgment which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state (115 Miss. 285, 76 South. 265). The case comes here by writ of error under section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

The railroad contends that the Supreme Court of Mississippi erred in sustaining the action of the trial court, which charged the jury that the so-called 'Prima Facie Act' of Mississippi (section 1985 of the Code of 1906, as amended by chapter 215, Laws 1912, p. 290) applied, and that it relieved the plaintiff of the burden of proof to establish negligence. Scarlet concedes now that the statute cannot constitutionally be applied to suits under the federal Employers' Liability Act, since this court has so decided in New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co. v. Harris, 247 U. S. 367, 38 Sup. Ct. 535, 62 L. Ed. 1167, and that the judgment must be reversed if the rights of the railroad were prejudiced by this error. But he contends that the railroad was not prejudiced, because negligence on its part is not essential to recovery. He insists that the Boiler Inspection Act, as amended, imposes upon the railroad the absolute duty (compare St. Louis & Iron Mountain Railway Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 28 Sup. Ct. 616, 52 L. Ed. 1061) to have the 'locomotive...