CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
COLE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF ROBERTS, ETC.

U.S. | 1919-12-08
No. 290
251 U.S. 54 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Caution
Also reported at: 64 L. Ed. 133 · 40 S. Ct. 68 · SCDB 1919-027 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1850
Cited by 16 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 company challenged an Oklahoma constitutional provision that required juries to determine contributory negligence and assumption of risk as questions of fact rather than law in a case where a pedestrian was killed after stepping onto railroad tracks. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff's administratrix, holding that states have constitutional authority to allocate functions between judge and jury, including empowering juries to decide issues traditionally treated as matters of law, and that such allocation does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the defendant in error for knocking down and killing her intestate, Roberts. He stepped upon the railroad track when a train was approaching in full view and was killed. It may be assumed, as the State Court assumed, that, if the question were open for a ruling of law, it would be ruled that the plaintiff .could not recover. But the Oklahoma Constitution provides that “the defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact, and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” Art. 23, § 6. The case was left to the jury and they found a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered for her and was affirmed on error by the Supreme •Court of the State, which held that the provision applied to the case and that when so applied it did not contravene the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. -

The state constitution was in force when the death occurred and therefore the defendant had only such right to the defense of contributory negligence as that constitution allowed. The argument that the Railroad Company had a vested right to that defense is disposed of by the decisions that it may be taken away altogether. Arizona Employers’ Liability Cases, 250 U. S.

400. Bowersock v. Smith, 243 U. S. 29, 34. It is said that legislation cannot change the standard of conduct, which is matter of law in its nature into matter of fact, and this may be conceded; but the material element in the constitutional enactment is not that it called contributory negligence fact but that it léft it wholly to the jury. There is nothing, however, in the Constitution of the United States or its Amendments that requires a State to maintain the line with which we are familiar between the functions of the jury and those of the Court. It may do away with the jury altogether, Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, modify its constitution, Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, the require-' ments of a verdict, Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211, or the procedure before it. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 111. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 340. As it may confer legislative and judicial powers upon a commission not known to the common law, Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, it may confer larger powers upon a jury than those that generally prevail. Provisions making the jury judges of the law as, well as of the facts in proceedings for libel are common to England and some of the States, and the controversy with regard to their powers in matters of law more generally as illustrated in Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 51, and Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dallas, 1, 4, shows that the notion is not a novelty. In the present instance the plaintiff in error cannot complain that its chance to prevail upon a certain ground is diminished when the ground might have been altogether removed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1932)
    …5th ed., § 29, pp. 41, 42, note. See Report of United States Employees’ Compensation Commission for fiscal year ending June 30, 1931, pp. 108, 109. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U. S. 210, 225; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cole, 251 U. S. 54, 56; Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 40, 42. Supra, note 13. See Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 284 U. S. 370. Freund, “Administrative Powers Over Persons and Property,” § 154, p. 293. Id., § 153, pp. 29…
  • Herron v. S. Pac. Co., 283 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1931)
    …e of the Conformity Act. U. S. C., Tit. 28, § 724. The State, without violating the requirements of due process, may provide such a rule for its own courts, as it may do away with the jury altogether (Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cole, 251 U. S. 54, 56), but in view of its nature and effect, the rule cannot be regarded as one that relates merely to practice or to a “ form ” or “ mode of proceeding.” The provision “ cuts deep into the right, observed at common law, by which a defendant can obta…
  • Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1994)
    …means of comparatively comprehensive preverdict procedures but markedly limited postverdict review, for Oregon has elected to make factfinding, once supporting evidence is produced, the province of the jury. Cf. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Cole, 251 U. S. 54, 56 (1919) (upholding against due process challenge Oklahoma Constitution’s assignment of contributory negligence and assumption of risk defenses to jury’s unreviewable decision; Court recognized State’s prerogative to “confer larger powers upon a j…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 5 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