Slocum v. Erie R. Co.
Decision Date | 05 January 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 100.,100. |
Citation | 47 F.2d 216 |
Parties | SLOCUM v. ERIE R. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Mortimer L. Sullivan, of Elmira, N. Y., for appellant.
Stanchfield, Collin, Lovell & Sayles, of Elmira, N. Y., for appellee.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff's intestate, Guy C. Slocum, was a switchman in a crew employed by the defendant, and was killed in its yard at Elmira, N. Y., on October 13, 1928, while assisting in putting five cars onto a siding by means of a "flying switch." The action was brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59). It was heard here on appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff 37 F.(2d) 42, and, after reversal and remand, a new trial ended in the direction of a verdict for the defendant. The above-mentioned case may be referred to for the circumstances surrounding the accident as the only material change in the evidence now is that a witness produced by the plaintiff testified that he saw Slocum fall from a car after it had been subjected to a violent jerk from the engine when it started. How and why Slocum fell to his death had been left without any satisfactory explanation at the first trial. The sole question now is whether this new evidence is adequate to supply the deficiency.
The new witness, Howe, after testifying that he was four tracks north of the five cars to be cut out and shunted onto the siding; that he first saw Slocum coming between the cars; that he saw him mount a high gondola directly opposite witness; that Slocum grasped the brake rod with his left hand; and that then the train gave a sudden jolt — testified as follows:
The explanation this witness gave for being...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galicich v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
... ... Bryceland Lumber Company, 72 So. 704, 139 ... La. 969. McElroy v. Swenson Construction Co., 247 ... S.W. 209, 213 Mo.App. 160. Chicago & Erie Co. v ... Steele, 118 N.E. 824. Buchanan & Gilder v ... Murayda, 124 S.W. 973, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 473 ... Nordhaus v. Vandalia Ry. Co., 89 ... Peters v. Alexy, ... 157 A. 624 (Pa.) ... Jester v. Phila., B. W. & R ... Company, 109 A. 774, 267 Pa. 10. Slocum v. Erie Ry ... Company, 47 F.2d 216. Claris v. Oregon Short Line R ... Co., 54 Ida. 568, 33 P.2d 348. B. & O. R. R. Company ... v. Groeger, ... ...
-
Pashea v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... 858; Ward v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co ... (Utah), 85 P.2d 837; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Normile ... (2d U.S. C. C. A.), 254 F. 680; Slocum v. Erie R ... Co. (2d U.S. C. C. A.), 47 F.2d 216; Norfolk & W. R ... Co. v. Fraley (6th U.S. C. C. A.), 69 F.2d 775.] ... ...
-
Claris v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company
... ... 918; 64 C. J. 407; Petres v. Alexy, 104 Pa. Super ... 93, 157 A. 624; Jester v. Philadelphia B. & W. R ... Co., 267 Pa. 10, 109 A. 774; Slocum v. Erie R ... Co., 47 F.2d 216.) ... From an ... examination of the record we are unable to reach any other ... conclusion than that ... ...
-
Caten v. Salt City Movers & Storage Co.
...In the review of a judgment on a directed verdict, conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved in favor of the appellant. Slocum v. Erie R. Co., 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 216; Kuper v. Betzer, 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 842. Accepting as true the evidence most favorable to the defendant, the jury could have f......