BOEHMER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD 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.
A railroad employee sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries sustained while working with a freight car that had handholds only at diagonally opposite corners rather than all four corners as he claimed was required. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' judgment for the railroad, holding that the Safety Appliance Act of 1893 did not require handholds at all four corners of a car and that the railroad was not negligent in failing to warn the employee about using cars with limited handholds.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
Relying upon the Federal Employets’ Liability Act, petitioner sought damages for personal injuries sustained by him November 8, 1915, while employed by respondent as brakesman. He claimed that the railroad was negligent in using a freight car not equipped with handholds or grab irons on all four outside corners; and also in failing to instruct him that he would be required to work about cars not so equipped. The car in question had secure and adequate handholds on the diagonally opposite comers. Being of opinion that this equipment sufficed to meet the commands of the statute and that, under the circumstances disclosed, failure to instruct the petitioner concerning possible use of such car did not constitute negligence, the trial court directed verdict for respondent.
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the consequent 'judgment. 252 Fed. Rep. 553. .Section 4 of the-Safety Appliance Act of 1893 (27 Stat. 531), provides:
“That 'from'1 and after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, until otherwise ordered by the Interstate Commerce Commission, it shall be unlawful for any railroad' compalny to use any car in interstate commerce that is not provided with secure grab irons or handholds in the ends and sides of each car for greater security to men in coupling and uncoupling cars.”
Petitioner insists that the Act of 1893 was designed for the safety of employees and specified grab irons or handholds in the end and sides of each car as one of the essential requirements. That while it did not specifically command that these should be placed at all four corners, this was the obvious intent. But the courts below concurred in rejecting that construction, and we cannot say they erred in so doing. Section 4 must be interpreted and applied in view of practical railroad operations; and having considered these the courts below ruled against petitioner’s theory.
Likewise we accept the concurrent judgment of the lower courts that the carrier was not negligent in failing to give warning concerning the use of cars with handholds only at two diagonal corners. Whether this constituted negligence depended upon an appreciation of the peculiar facts presented, and the rule is well settled that in such circumstances where two courts have agreed we will , not enter upon a minute analysis of the evidence. Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222.
The judgment is
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)…llis v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 249 U. S. 515; affirmance of directed verdict for defendant affirmed. 1919 Term. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Boehmer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 252 U. S. 496; affirmance of directed verdict for defendant affirmed. 1920 Term. Southern Pacific Co. v. Berkshire, 254 U. S. 415; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff reversed. 1923 Term. Frese v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 263 U. S. 1; reversal of judgment fo…
-
Davis v. Manry, 266 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1925)
Authorities Cited
- Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1911)