Union Pac Co v. Huxoll

• Decision Date: 21 January 1918
• Docket Number: No. 104,104
• Citation: 245 U.S. 535,38 S.Ct. 187,62 L.Ed. 455
• Parties: UNION PAC. R. CO. v. HUXOLL
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

245 U.S. 535

38 S.Ct. 187

62 L.Ed. 455

UNION PAC. R. CO.

v HUXOLL.

No. 104.

Argued Dec. 21, 1917.

Decided Jan. 21, 1918.

Messrs. Nelson H. Loomis, of Omaha, Neb., and C. A. Magaw, of Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Halleck F. Rose, of Omaha, Neb., and Walter V. Hoagland, of North Platte, Neb., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Fred J. Huxoll, a locomotive engineer in the employ of the plaintiff in error, was run down by a switching engine, about 11 o'clock in the morning, in a switching yard of the company at a division point in Nebraska, and subsequently died of the injuries which he received.

The weather was very cold, with a high wind blowing and a cloud of steam and smoke, from engines standing nearby the scene of the accident and from a roundhouse farther away, had settled down upon the tracks, and it was while passing through this that the deceased was struck by the engine. This cloud of steam and smoke is described by one witness as extending 300 or 400 feet along the tracks, and by another for about 100 to 200 feet. It varied in density and shifted with the wind, so that at times one could see considerable distances through it while at other times it was so dense that it was possible to see only a very short distance. Huxoll was walking eastward through this cloud of smoke and steam and was between the rails of one of the tracks when an engine backing toward the west struck him in such a manner that the tender passed over him, and when the engine was stopped he was opposite the main driving wheel, with his right wrist under the wheel on the rail.

Judgment was rendered by the trial court on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and, the case being one to which the federal Employers' Liability Act is applicable, it is now here on writ of error.

There are many claims of negligence in the petition, but the court submitted only three of them to the jury, and of these we need consider but one instruction, viz.:

Was the power brake on the engine in working order at the time of the accident, and if it was not, did this defect contribute 'in whole or in part' to cause the death of Huxoll?

The oral argument of counsel for the plaintiff in error was practically confined to the proposition that the trial court committed reversible error in submitting these questions to the jury, for the reason that, even if it be assumed (as it must be for there is sharp conflict on the point) that the power brake was not in working order, there was no substantial evidence in the case that this failure contributed 'in whole or in part' to cause the death of Huxoll.

The engineer did not see the deceased at the moment he was struck, and it is argued that there is no substantial evidence to show how much farther the engine ran after he was notified of the accident than it would have run if the power brake had been properly applied, or that the running of the engine such distance, whatever it may have been, added anything to the injuries of the deceased and so contributed to cause his death.

It is necessary for us to examine the evidence in the record to determine the validity of this claim for the reason that it presents a federal question, not of fact but of law (Creswell v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 261, 32 Sup. Ct. 822, 56 L. Ed. 1074; Seaboard Air Line v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668, 673, 35 Sup. Ct. 481, 59 L. Ed. 777), and it relates to the only negligence claimed in the case which, if proved, would relieve the defendant in error, as the charge of...