Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore, No. 609

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation228 U.S. 433,57 L.Ed. 907,33 S.Ct. 580
Decision Date28 April 1913
PartiesSEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, Plff. in Err., v. P. R. MOORE
Docket NumberNo. 609

228 U.S. 433
33 S.Ct. 580
57 L.Ed. 907
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

P. R. MOORE.

No. 609.
Argued and submitted December 3, 1912.
Decided April 28, 1913.

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

Page 434

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,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 practice notes
  • Waithaka v. Amazon.Com, Inc., No. 19-1848
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • July 17, 2020
    ...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 ......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Humphries, 31708
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 28, 1935
    ...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 L.Ed. 1433. Damages are not limited to railroad earnings alone. St. Louis & I. M. R. R. ......
  • Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Lucken, 24405
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 3, 1925
    ...the negligence of the driver and to limit the recovery to only such damages as were caused by the railroad company. Railroad Co. v. Moore, 228 U.S. 433. Authorities cited in appellant's brief do not apply to the case at bar. We have made a very exhaustive search of the entire reporter syste......
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Howerton , No. 22656.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 23, 1914
    ...is said: “The defense of assumed risk was submitted to the jury under a full and fair charge.” The case of Seaboard, etc., Co. v. Moore, 228 U. S. 433, 33 Sup. Ct. 580, 57 L. Ed. 907, apparently approves the rule. It is also declared in Northern Pac. Co. v. Maerkl, 198 Fed. 1, 117 C. C. A. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
43 cases
  • Waithaka v. Amazon.Com, Inc., No. 19-1848
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • July 17, 2020
    ...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 ......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Humphries, 31708
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 28, 1935
    ...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 L.Ed. 1433. Damages are not limited to railroad earnings alone. St. Louis & I. M. R. R. ......
  • Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Lucken, 24405
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 3, 1925
    ...the negligence of the driver and to limit the recovery to only such damages as were caused by the railroad company. Railroad Co. v. Moore, 228 U.S. 433. Authorities cited in appellant's brief do not apply to the case at bar. We have made a very exhaustive search of the entire reporter syste......
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Howerton , No. 22656.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 23, 1914
    ...is said: “The defense of assumed risk was submitted to the jury under a full and fair charge.” The case of Seaboard, etc., Co. v. Moore, 228 U. S. 433, 33 Sup. Ct. 580, 57 L. Ed. 907, apparently approves the rule. It is also declared in Northern Pac. Co. v. Maerkl, 198 Fed. 1, 117 C. C. A. ......
  • 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