ECKENRODE, ADMINISTRATRIX,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO.
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.
The Court held that there was no evidence upon which a jury could find negligence by the respondent that contributed to the decedent's death.
A widow sued her husband's employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and the Boiler Inspection Act for his death. The jury found negl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Boiler Inspection Act cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This was a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in which the petitioner claimed damages under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act1 and the Boiler Inspection Act2 for the death of her husband while in the respondent’s employ as a brakeman. In response to specific interrogatories, the jury absolved the respondent of liability under the Boiler Inspection Act, but found that there had been such negligence as to create liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. It returned a verdict for petitioner. Judgment was entered upon the verdict.
The respondent moved the Court to set aside the verdict and the judgment entered thereon in accordance with its motion for directed verdict under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment was vacated; the verdict set aside, and judgment entered in favor of the respondent. The District Court was of the opinion that there was no evidence upon which a finding of negligence could be predicated, and that, in any event, there was no evidence of a causal relation between the claimed negligence and the accident. 71 F. Supp. 764.
Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the judgment was affirmed. A rehearing was granted, and there was an affirmance with one judge dissenting. 164 F. 2d 996.
There is a single question presented to us: Was there any evidence in the record upon which the jury could have found negligence on the part of the respondent which contributed, in whole or in part,3 to Eckenrode’s death? Upon consideration of the record, the Court is of the opinion that there is no evidence, nor any inference which reasonably may be drawn from the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the petitioner, which can sustain a recovery for her. Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge dissent.
35 Stat. 65, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51.
36 Stat. 913, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 23.
45 U. S. C. § 51.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
Dworkis v. Dworkis, 111 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…Carlyon, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 219. Disbelief of the denials by one party, of facts which must be proved and corroborated, is not the equivalent of affirmative evidence of those facts. Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 164 F. 2d 996, affirmed 335 U.S. 329, 69 S.Ct. 91, 93 L.Ed. 41; Mandelbaum v. United States, 2 Cir., 251 F. 2d 748; Du Bois v. Du Bois, 141 Cal.App.2d 626, 297 P. 2d 76; Cruzan v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 227 Mass. 594, 116 N.E. 879; Ciairmont v. Cilley, 85 N.H. 1, 153 A. 465; Bi…
-
Rogers v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1957)…ew York Cent. R. Co., 315 U. S. 781; Jenkins v. Kurn, 313 U. S. 256. The Court found that no question for the jury was presented, and affirmed in the following cases: Moore v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 340 U. S. 573; Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 335 U. S. 329; Brady v. Southern R. Co., 320 U. S. 476.…
-
Wilkerson v. McCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1949)…ower court which set aside a jury verdict for an employee or rendered judgment for the employer on questions of law was sustained: Brady v. Southern R. Co., 320 U. S. 476. Hunter v. Texas Electric R. Co., 332 U. S. 827. Eckenrode v. Penn. R. Co., 335 U. S. 329. C. Where lower court which upheld the jury’s verdict on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence was sustained: McCarthy v. Bruner, 323 U. S. 673. II. Cases in which certiorari was denied: A. Where lower court withheld case from jury a…
Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eckenrode v. Pa. R. Co., 164 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1947)