BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
WHITACRE

U.S. | 1916-12-04
No. 71
242 U.S. 169 Supreme Court of the United States (1916) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 61 L. Ed. 228 · 37 S. Ct. 33 · SCDB 1916-037 · 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1545
Cited by 39 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A railroad brakeman recovered damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act after falling into an unguarded water cinder pit in a railroad yard during foggy conditions, and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the grounds that sufficient evidence supported submission of the negligence case to the jury and the trial court properly refused defendant's requested instructions that would have excluded relevant facts from the jury's consideration.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brandéis

Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the court.

Whitacre, a freight train brakeman, while walking through a railroad yard on a dark and foggy , night, fell into a water cinder pit and was seriously injured. He brought suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65, in a state court and recovered a verdict. Exceptions were taken to certain refusals to rule. The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the court below. 124 Maryland, 411.

It appeared at the trial that, although the pit was of modern construction and well adapted to the purpose for which it was constructed, it was not protected by a guard rail. There was testimony that at the time of the accident certain lights alleged to have been provided about the pit were not lighted; that it had been raining; and that the top of the water was covered to some extent with ashes which made it difficult to distinguish the surface of the pit from solid ground. It was admitted that Whit-acre was engaged in interstate commerce. The defences relied upon were assumption of risk and denial of negligence.

The defendant (plaintiff in error) requested a peremptory instruction in its favor, on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The appellate court was unanimous in holding that the "trial court had properly left the case to the jury. No clear and palpable error is shown which would justify us in disturbing that ruling. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668, 673; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464, 466. The defendant further complains that the trial court refused to give certain instructions on the issues of negligence and assumption of risk. These instructions were properly refused; because in each instance the recital therein did not include all the facts which the jury was entitled to consider on the issues presented and concerning which there was some evidence. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)
    …ffirmed. Spokane & I. E. R. Co. v. Campbell, 241 U. S. 497; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. 1916 Term. Atlantic City R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U. S. 56; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U. S. 169; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. Moore, 243 U. S. 311; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. [*552] New York Central & H. R. R. Co. v. Tonsellito, 244 U. S. 360; affirmance of judgment for plaint…
  • Pa. R.R. Co. v. Olivit Bros., 243 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1917)
  • Am. Express Co. v. United States Horse Shoe Co., 244 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1917)
    …e result, however, of the conclusion of both courts as to the fact of negligence and the absence of any ground for clear conviction of error on the subject (Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464, 466; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U. S. 169), as well as because of the limitations resulting from the errors assigned and relied upon, the question of liability may be put out of view, thus reducing the case to a question of the amount, and that turns on whether there was a limitation of lia…

Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw