Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore
| Citation | 228 U.S. 433,57 L.Ed. 907,33 S.Ct. 580 |
| Decision Date | 28 April 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 609,609 |
| Parties | SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, Plff. in Err., v. P. R. MOORE |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. James F. Glen and P. O. Knight for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. George C. Bedell, A. H. King, Roswell King, Hilton S. Hampton, and Horatio Bisbee for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by Mr. Chief Justice White:
The defendant in error sued to recover damages for injuries sustained on October 6, 1909, while in the employ of the railway company as a foreman of switch engines, in being thrown from an alleged defective step or footboard of a switch engine. The case was submitted to a jury upon a single count of the declaration. The jury was specially instructed that it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove the existence of the defect complained of, that it was a defect of such a character as to cause its existence to be a negligent failure of the defendant to properly equip its engine, that the defect was the proximate cause of the injury, and that the plaintiff was, at the time he was injured, 'engaged in interstate commerce.' The jury was also instructed that the burden of proof was upon the railway company to establish the truth of defenses interposed by it of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. A judgment entered for the plaintiff upon a verdict in his favor was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, in a brief opinion, and this writ of error was then prosecuted.
The matters pressed upon our attention on behalf of the plaintiff in error embrace assertions of the commission of error by the circuit court of appeals in deciding that the trial court rightly refused to give instructions asked on behalf of the railway company, covering the various issues raised by the pleadings. Based upon a statement made in the opinion of the court below to the effect that the case of Second Employers' Liability (Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. 44, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 169, was decisive (N.S.) 44, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 169, was decisive of the constitutionality and applicability to the case of the employers' liability law, and, moreover, disposed of a number of contentions urged in the assignments of error filed below, it is pressed upon our attention that the court decided and erred in deciding that the employers' liability law abolished, as to all cases coming under its provisions, the defense of assumption of risk, and, also, that a railroad...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Humphries
...and there was no evidence of contributory negligence on either trial. M. & O. R. R. Co. v. Campbell, 114 Miss. 803; Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co. v. Moore, 228 U.S. 433; Central of Vt. R. R. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507; 59 1433. Damages are not limited to railroad earnings alone. St. Louis & I......
-
Immediato v. Postmates, Inc.
...; see Phila. & Reading Ry. Co. v. Hancock, 253 U.S. 284, 285-86, 40 S.Ct. 512, 64 L.Ed. 907 (1920) ; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Moore, 228 U.S. 433, 434-35, 33 S.Ct. 580, 57 L.Ed. 907 (1913). Consequently, we held that the last-mile drivers were workers engaged in "the flow of interstate comm......
-
Waithaka v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
...even if the worker's role in transporting the goods occurred entirely within a single state. In Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore, 228 U.S. 433, 33 S.Ct. 580, 57 L.Ed. 907 (1913), the Court held that a railroad worker thrown from a train was "engaged in interstate commerce" at the time of ......
-
Toussaint v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
... ... Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, a Corporation No. 32137Supreme Court of MissouriApril 21, 1937 ... 1051; Mondon v. Railroad Co., 223 U.S. 1, ... 56 L.Ed. 327; Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v ... Moore, 228 U.S. 433, 57 L.Ed. 907; N. Y., N ... ...