Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Tilghman

• Decision Date: 17 May 1915
• Docket Number: No. 713,713
• Citation: Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Tilghman, 237 U.S. 499, 35 S.Ct. 653, 59 L.Ed. 1069 (1915)
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, Plff. in Err., v. W. B. TILGHMAN
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

237 U.S. 499

35 S.Ct. 653

59 L.Ed. 1069

SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, Plff. in Err.,

v W. B. TILGHMAN.

No. 713.

Argued April 22 and 23, 1915.

Decided May 17, 1915.

Mr. Murray Allen for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. William C. Douglass, Clyde A. Douglass, and Robert N. Simms for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Van Devanterdelivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action in the superior court of Wake county, North Carolina, under the employers' liability act of Congress(35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657), to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a head-on collision of two passenger trains, of one of which he was the conductor in charge.A trial of the issues resulted in a verdict finding that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the concurring negligence of the railway company and himself, and assessing the damages recoverable by him at $7,000.A judgment in his favor was rendered on the verdict, and the company appealed to the supreme court of the state, where the judgment was affirmed, two judges dissenting.167 N. C. 163, 83 S. E. 315, 1090.

The Federal question which brings the case here is whether proper effect was given to that part of the statute which deals with the measure of recovery where the employee contributes to his injuries by his own negligence.

At common law there could be no recovery in such a case, the contributory negligence being a complete bar or defense.But this statute rejects the common-law rule and adopts another, deemed more reasonable, by declaring (§ 3), 'the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee.'This is followed by a proviso to the effect that contributory negligence on the part of the employee shall not be considered for any purpose where the carrier's fault consisted in the violation of a statute—a Federal statute—enacted for the safety of employees (seeSeaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492, 503, 58 L. ed. 1062, 1069, L.R.A. 1915C, 1, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 635); but this is not such a case, and so the principal provision is the one to be applied.It means, and can only mean, as this court has held, that, where the causal negligence is attributable partly to the carrier and partly to the injured employee, he shall not recover full damages, but only a diminished sum bearing the same...