NELSON
v.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
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.
Nelson, an engineer employed by Southern Railway for eleven years, injured his knee when a rotted railroad tie broke beneath him while he walked on the main track during a survey. The Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of his negligence judgment under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, holding that the railroad had no duty to maintain the specific condition that caused his injury, as the defect in the tie did not impair safety in train operations and the employee was aware that some deterioration of ties and ballast was routine.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court.
Nelson, a civil engineer who had been in the employ of the Southern Railway eleven years, was directed to make a survey in one of its yards. While doing so he walked on the main track between the rails where he had seen others walk. As he stepped upon a cross-tie, a small V-shaped piece of it one and a half inches by six, being rotten, slivered off under his weight. His foot slipped down between the ties where the ballast was five or six inches below the top of .the tie; and stumbling, he fell and dislocated his knee. The defect in the tie could have been discovered by sounding with an iron rod and the standard of maintenance of roadbed prescribed by the Railway was to ballast to the top of the ties. But neither the condition of the tie, nor the failure to ballast to the top of the tie, was a defect of a character to impair safety in operation. Plaintiff knew that there were always some ties on the line which were partly decayed, and also that the ballast was occasionally below the top óf the ties.
Upon these facts Nelson sought in a state court of North Carolina to recover damages from the Railway under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The trial court refused defendant’s motion for a non-suit; and the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff. Judgment thereon was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State (170 N. Car. 170) on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence; and the case came here on writ of error. It is clear that the defendant did not fail in any duty which it owed to the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)…ent for defendant affirmed. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Huxoll, 245 U. S. 535; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Great Northern R. Co. v. Donaldson, 246 U. S. 121; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Nelson v. Southern R. Co., 246 U. S. 253; reversal of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Hadley, 246 U. S. 330; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. 1918 Term. Gillis v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 249 U. S. 515; affirmance of directed verdict for defend…
-
Delaware v. Koske, 279 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1929)…he evidence is not sufficient to warrant a finding that defendant was guilty of any breach of duty owed to plaintiff in respect [*12] of the method employed or the condition of the drain at the time and place in question. Nelson v. Southern Ry. Co., 246 U. S. 253. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Aeby, 275 U. S. 426. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that for some weeks immediately before the accident the sun rose and it was light for some time before plaintiff’s quitting hour. Montenes v. Metropo…
-
Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Aeby, 275 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1928)…and dangers. Tuttle v. Milwaukee Railway, 122 U. S. 194. The facts of this case, when taken most favorably to the respondent, are not sufficient to sustain a finding that petitioner failed in any duty owed [*431] to her. Nelson v. Southern Ry. Co., 246 U. S. 253. As negligence on the part of the petitioner is essential, we need not consider its contentions in respect of assumption of risk and negligence on the part of respondent. Judgment reversed.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence