St Louis San Francisco Railroad Company v. Harry Brown
| Decision Date | 22 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 399,399 |
| Citation | 241 U.S. 223,60 L.Ed. 966,36 S.Ct. 602 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. HARRY A. BROWN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. W. F. Evans, R. A. Kleinschmidt, and J. H. Grant for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. C. B. Stuart, A. C. Cruce, M. K. Cruce, W. I. Cruce, and L. S. Dolman for defendant in error.
Basing his cause of action upon the Federal employers' liability and safety appliance acts, Brown, the defendant in error, sued to recover damages resulting from injuries alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the railroad company while he was in its employ and engaged in interstate commerce. At the close of the testimony the claim under the safety appliance act was withdrawn and the case was submitted to the jury alone upon the employers' liability act. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the court below. ——Okla. ——, 144 Pac. 1075.
There was a sharp conflict between the testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff and that on behalf of the defendant. The material facts disclosed by the plaintiff's testimony are as follows: Brown, a head brakeman, and other members of a local freight train crew on the day in question were engaged in the yards at Ashdown, Arkansas, in making up an extra freight train to be taken out by an extra crew to Hugo, Oklahoma. The cars intended for the interstate train were placed on an east and west passing track east of a switch connecting a spur track which ran in a northeasterly direction past a stave mill. After placing some cars from the spur track on the passing track, the engine returned to the spur track with several cars, some of which were to be left at the mill and the remainder brought out and coupled to those already collected for the train and standing on the passing track. Brown accompanied the cars, and, after cutting off those intended for the mill, gave the engineer a signal to go ahead, the engine being headed west, and when the cars approaching the switch came opposite the car on the passing track to which the coupling was to be made, Brown crossed over from the spur track to the passing track to adjust the coupler on the car standing there. Finding the knuckle of the coupler closed, he attempted to open it with the lever at the side of the car, but it did not work. He then tried to manipulate the knuckle with his hand, but could get it only part way open, and, closing it, he stepped out to the north side of the track (the engineer's side). As the last car coupled with the engine was then just clearing the switch, he gave the engineer a stop signal and walked west to the switch stand to set the switch so that the engine and cars might be backed to make the coupling. By the time he had walked the short intervening distance and set the switch the engine had come to a stop with the rear car a few steps west of the switch. Intending then to adjust the coupler on the end of this car, Brown gave the engineer, who was watching him, a 'spot' signal, which indicated that he was not to move the engine until a further signal was given by Brown, and crossed over to the south side of the track in order to use the lifting pin to open the knuckle of the coupler. When the lever failed to work he stepped behind the car and was about to try to open the knuckle with his hand when he heard the cars ahead of him move. He at once turned to leave the track, but was struck and knocked down by the car which was backed in disregard of the 'spot' signal, and his feet were caught under the wheels and crushed.
The assignments of error are numerous, but those requiring to be specially noticed may be disposed of under three headings:
1. The contention that rights of the railroad company guaranteed by the 7th Amendment were violated because only nine of the twelve jurors concurred in the verdict is without merit. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander
... ... Manufacturing Company and others for wrongful death of her ... & M. V. R. R. Co., 77 Miss. 494; ... Railroad Co. v. Elliott, 149 U.S ... 266, 271; 2 ... 594, 42 L.Ed ... 1037; St. Louis, etc., v. Paul, ... 173 U.S. 404, 19 S.Ct ... St. Louis, Ry ... Co. v. Brown, 241 U.S. 223, 60 L. Ed., ... 966. The verdict ... ...
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
... ... the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment adverse ... to defendant, and ... interstate cars. St. Louis, S. F. & T. R. Co. v ... Seale, 229 U.S. 156, ... 838; ... St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 241 U.S. 223, 36 ... S.Ct. 602, 60 L.Ed. 966; ... ...
-
Arenas v. United States
...Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 780, 790. 9 25 U.S.C.A. § 372. 10 Act of May 8, 1906, c. 2348, 34 Stat. 182, 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 349, 404 note. 11 241 U.S. 210, 36 S.Ct. 602. 12 Gerard v. United States, 9 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 951, 954. In Bertrand v. Doyle, 10 Cir., 1929, 36 F.2d 351, 352, the Court ruled ......
-
Borchert, Application of
...a judgment of a state supreme court because a wrong reason was assigned for a correct decision. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Brown, 241 U.S. 223, 36 S.Ct. 602, 60 L.Ed. 966. The same rule applies in the Federal system. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469; Securit......