St Louis San Francisco Railroad Company v. Fannie Conarty, No. 166

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtVan Devanter
Citation35 S.Ct. 785,238 U.S. 243,59 L.Ed. 1290
Decision Date14 June 1915
Docket NumberNo. 166
PartiesST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. FANNIE M. CONARTY, Administratrix, etc

238 U.S. 243
35 S.Ct. 785
59 L.Ed. 1290
ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

FANNIE M. CONARTY, Administratrix, etc.

No. 166.
Submitted March 3, 1915.
Decided June 14, 1915.

Messrs. W. F. Evans and Thomas P. Littlepage for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 243-245 intentionally omitted]

Page 246

Mr. Samuel R. Chew for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 246-248 intentionally omitted]

Page 248

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action for personal injuries ultimately resulting in death, the right of recovery being based upon the employers' liability act (35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657; 36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8662), in connection with the safety appliance acts (27 Stat. at L. 531, chap. 196, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8605; 29 Stat. at L. 85, chap. 87, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8610; 32 Stat. at L. 943, chap. 976, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8613; 36 Stat. at L. 298, chap. 160, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8617). The injuries were received in a collision between a switch engine and a loaded freight car having no coupler or drawbar at one end, these having been pulled out while the car was in transit. The car was about to be placed on an isolated track for repair, and was left near the switch leading to that track while other cars were being moved out of the way,—a task taking about five minutes. At that time a switch engine with which the deceased was working came along the track on which the car was standing and the collision ensued. It was drak and an electric headlight on another engine operated to obscure the car until the switch engine was within 40 or 50 feet of it. The deceased and two companions were standing on the footboard at the front of the switch engine, and when the car was observed, his companions stepped to the ground on either side of the track, while he remained on the footboard and was caught between the engine and the body of the car at the end from which the coupler and drawbar were missing. Had these appliances been in place they, in one view of the evidence, would have kept the engine and the body of the car sufficiently apart to have prevented the injury, but in their absence the engine came in immediate contact with the sill of the car, with the result stated. The deceased and his companions, with the switch engine, were on their way to do some switching at a point some distance beyond the car, and were not

Page 249

intending, and did not attempt, to couple it to the engine or to handle it in any way. Its movement was in the hands of others. The car was loaded with freight moving from one state to another, the railroad company was engaged in interstate commerce, and the deceased was employed therein at the time. He died from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
118 practice notes
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...Cf. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Gotschall, 244 U.S. 66, 37 S.Ct. 598, 61 L.Ed. 995; St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 35 S.Ct. 785, 59 L.Ed. 1290....
  • Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32531.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...the cars. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover and the judgment should be reversed. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 59 L. Ed. 1290, 35 Sup. Ct. 785; Lang v. Ry. Co., 255 U.S. 455, 65 L. Ed. 729, 41 Sup. Ct. 381; Davis v. Wolfe, 263 U.S. 239; Davis v. Hand, 2......
  • Bishop v. Musick Plating Works, No. 20105.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 6, 1928
    ...v. Iron Works, 249 Mo. 376; Strode v. Columbia Box Co., 250 Mo. 695; Morgan v. Hinge Mfg. Co., 120 Mo. App. 590; Railroad v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243; Lang v. Railroad, 255 U.S. 455; Ferguson v. Coal & Coke Co., 84 S.E. 573. (2) Section 6786, Revised Statutes 1919, does not apply to polishing ......
  • Burch v. Railway Co., No. 28820.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 24, 1931
    ...it appeared from the evidence that no such persons were in need of warning at the particular time in question; Railroad v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, where the injured employee sought protection of the Safety Appliance Acts, though not engaged in the act of coupling cars when he was injured; La......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
110 cases
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...Cf. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Gotschall, 244 U.S. 66, 37 S.Ct. 598, 61 L.Ed. 995; St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 35 S.Ct. 785, 59 L.Ed. 1290....
  • Kimberling v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32531.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...the cars. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover and the judgment should be reversed. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 59 L. Ed. 1290, 35 Sup. Ct. 785; Lang v. Ry. Co., 255 U.S. 455, 65 L. Ed. 729, 41 Sup. Ct. 381; Davis v. Wolfe, 263 U.S. 239; Davis v. Hand, 2......
  • Bishop v. Musick Plating Works, No. 20105.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 6, 1928
    ...v. Iron Works, 249 Mo. 376; Strode v. Columbia Box Co., 250 Mo. 695; Morgan v. Hinge Mfg. Co., 120 Mo. App. 590; Railroad v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243; Lang v. Railroad, 255 U.S. 455; Ferguson v. Coal & Coke Co., 84 S.E. 573. (2) Section 6786, Revised Statutes 1919, does not apply to polishing ......
  • Burch v. Railway Co., No. 28820.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 24, 1931
    ...it appeared from the evidence that no such persons were in need of warning at the particular time in question; Railroad v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, where the injured employee sought protection of the Safety Appliance Acts, though not engaged in the act of coupling cars when he was injured; La......
  • 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