Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Beauregard Magdalene Koennecke Koennecke, No. 491
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 36 S.Ct. 126,60 L.Ed. 324,239 U.S. 352 |
| Parties | SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, Plff. in Err., v. BEAUREGARD MAGDALENE KOENNECKE, as Administratrix of the Estate of J. T. KOENNECKE, Deceased |
| Docket Number | No. 491 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1915 |
v.
BEAUREGARD MAGDALENE KOENNECKE, as Administratrix of the Estate of J. T. KOENNECKE, Deceased.
Page 353
Mr. Jo Berry S. Lyles for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Frank G. Tompkins, C. S. Monteith, and W. H. Cobb for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action brought by the defendant in error for causing the death of her intestate, J. T. Koennecke. That latter was run over by a train of the plaintiff in error (the defendant) while acting as switchman in the defendant's yard at Cayce, South Carolina. The declaration alleged reckless negligence, and set out that the wife and four children named were the only heirs and distributees of the deceased, that they were dependent upon him for support, and that they had suffered damage to the amount of $75,000. There was a statute in South Carolina similar to Lord Campbell's act and allowing exemplary damages in the case alleged. In view of testimony brought out on cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses the plaintiff
Page 354
asked leave to amend so as specifically to bring the case under the employers' liability act of Congress, of April 22, 1908, chap. 149, 35 Stat. at L. 65, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657, the declaration as it stood not disclosing in terms under which statute the action was brought. If it were read as manifestly demanding exemplary damages, that would point to the state law, but the allegation of dependence was relevant only under the act of Congress. The amendment was allowed over a denial of the power of the court to allow it, which, however, is not argued here. Central Vermont R. Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 59 L. ed. 1433, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U. S. 570, 576, 57 L. ed. 355, 363, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 135, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 134. The defendant then objected to the trial going on. The court left it to the counsel to say whether he was taken by surprise, and, the counsel not being willing to say so, although saying that he was not prepared on the question of dependency, ordered the trial to proceed. It was alleged as an error that the requirement was contrary to the 14th Amendment. The other errors alleged concerned the sufficiency of the evidence said to bring the case within the act of Congress and also the evidence touching the questions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 35790.
...& P. Ry. Co., 274 S.W. 1079; Kippenbrock v. Wabash Railroad Co., 194 S.W. 50; Hubbard v. Wabash, 193 S.W. 579; Seaboard v. Beauregard, 239 U.S. 352, 36 S.C. 126; Glunt v. Penn. Ry. Co., 95 Atl. 109; South Ry. v. Smith, 205 Fed. 360. (c) Defendant owed plaintiff a duty to keep a reasonable l......
-
Sears v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., (Nos. 445-3934.)
...P. Ry. Co., 74 F. 285, 20 C. C. A. 184; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 69 F. 525, 16 C. C. A. 300; Seaboard, etc., Co. v. Koennecke, 239 U. S. 352, 36 S. Ct. 126, 60 L. Ed. Conversely, it owes no duty, except in the event of discovered peril, toward any person who is making an improper,......
-
Dutra Grp. v. Batterton, No. 18-266
..."were read as manifestly demanding exemplary damages, that would point to the state law." Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Koennecke , 239 U.S. 352, 354, 36 S.Ct. 126, 60 L.Ed. 324 (1915). And in the years since, Federal Courts of Appeals have unanimously held that punitive damages are not avail......
-
Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co, No. 13240.
...158 Wash. 414, 290 P. 803, 804. See, also, Penn. Co. v. Donat, 239 U. S. 50, 36 S. Ct. 4, 60 L. Ed. 139; Seaboard A. L. v. Koennecke, 239 U. S. 352, 36 S. Ct. 126, 60 L. Ed. 324; Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U. S. 496, 36 S. Ct. 210, 60 L. Ed. 402; Phila. & R. R. Co. v. Hancock, 253 U. S. ......
-
Evans v. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 35790.
...& P. Ry. Co., 274 S.W. 1079; Kippenbrock v. Wabash Railroad Co., 194 S.W. 50; Hubbard v. Wabash, 193 S.W. 579; Seaboard v. Beauregard, 239 U.S. 352, 36 S.C. 126; Glunt v. Penn. Ry. Co., 95 Atl. 109; South Ry. v. Smith, 205 Fed. 360. (c) Defendant owed plaintiff a duty to keep a reasonable l......
-
Sears v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., (Nos. 445-3934.)
...P. Ry. Co., 74 F. 285, 20 C. C. A. 184; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 69 F. 525, 16 C. C. A. 300; Seaboard, etc., Co. v. Koennecke, 239 U. S. 352, 36 S. Ct. 126, 60 L. Ed. Conversely, it owes no duty, except in the event of discovered peril, toward any person who is making an improper,......
-
Dutra Grp. v. Batterton, No. 18-266
..."were read as manifestly demanding exemplary damages, that would point to the state law." Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Koennecke , 239 U.S. 352, 354, 36 S.Ct. 126, 60 L.Ed. 324 (1915). And in the years since, Federal Courts of Appeals have unanimously held that punitive damages are not avail......
-
Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co, No. 13240.
...158 Wash. 414, 290 P. 803, 804. See, also, Penn. Co. v. Donat, 239 U. S. 50, 36 S. Ct. 4, 60 L. Ed. 139; Seaboard A. L. v. Koennecke, 239 U. S. 352, 36 S. Ct. 126, 60 L. Ed. 324; Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U. S. 496, 36 S. Ct. 210, 60 L. Ed. 402; Phila. & R. R. Co. v. Hancock, 253 U. S. ......