NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO.
v.
HENAGAN
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 the proofs were insufficient to submit the question of employer negligence to the jury regarding the emergency brake application.
A waitress sued her employer railroad under FELA for injuries sustained when an emergency brake application occurred as the train approached a station…
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 Employer Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The respondent was a waitress in the grill car of one of petitioner’s trains. She brought this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., for damages for injuries allegedly sustained when an emergency application of the brakes brought the train to a sudden stop. A jury which heard the case in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts returned a verdict for respondent. The trial judge denied the petitioner’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, 272 F. 2d 153. We granted certiorari, 362 U. S. 967.
The train was pulling into petitioner’s station at Providence, Rhode Island, for a scheduled stop. One Montell, apparently to commit suicide, stepped on the track from the station platform as the train approached alongside the platform. The engineer made the emergency application of the brakes in an unsuccessful effort to stop the train before it reached Montell. We have examined the trial record and hold that the proofs were insufficient to submit to the jury the question whether employer negligence played a part in the emergency application of the brakes which allegedly produced the respondent’s injury. See Herdman v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 352 U. S. 518.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with direction to enter judgment for the petitioner notwithstanding the verdict.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent. They believe there was evidence of negligence sufficient for the jury, as summarized by Judge Woodbury, speaking for a unanimous Court of Appeals. 272 F. 2d 153. They also dissent from the direction to enter judgment for the petitioner, since they are of the view that if there is a reversal, there should be a new trial. See Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372, 396 (dissenting opinion).
For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., Inc., 386 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1967)…nt of power to appellate courts by pointing to instances in which those courts, and even assertedly this Court, have utilized this power in the past. The Court cites Pence v. United States, 316 U. S. 332, and New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Henagan, 364 U. S. 441, as such instances. In Pence, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s refusal to grant judgment n. o. v. and remanded for further consistent proceedings. We affirmed without the slightest indication that we felt the Court of Appeals’ mandat…1 / 2
-
Jackson v. S. Ry. Co., 317 F.2d 532 (5th Cir. 1963)…y to follow the law, as it is laid down by the Court.’ ” The Court also quoted from the oft-cited case of Capital Traction Company v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1, 13-14, 19 S.Ct. 580, 43 L.Ed. 873. Such is still the law. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Henagan, 364 U.S. 441, 81 S.Ct. 198, 5 L.Ed.2d 183. It is improper for a court to instruct on a proposition of law about which there is no evidence. McCarthy v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 7 Cir., 156 F. 2d 877; Jones v. Weaver, 9 Cir., 123 F. 2d 403, 407. Such an instruction…
-
Pehowic v. Erie Lackawanna R.R. Co., 430 F.2d 697 (3d Cir. 1970)…S.Ct. 387, 4 L.Ed.2d 366 (1960) ; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U.S. 512, 77 S.Ct. 451, 1 L.Ed.2d 503 (1957). The Court held that no jury question was presented by the evidence in the following cases: New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Henagan, 364 U.S. 441, 81 S.Ct. 198, 5 L.Ed.2d 183 (1960) (per curiam) ; Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 361 U.S. 138, 80 S.Ct. 242, 4 L.Ed.2d 198 (1959). For a compilation of earlier cases relating to sufficiency of the evidence in FELA cases, see Appendix B to the d…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rogers v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1957)
- Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372 (U.S. 1943)
- Herdman v. Pa. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1957)
- NEW York v. Henagan, 272 F.2d 153 (1st Cir. 1959)
- Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 362 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1960)
- Korholz v. United States, 362 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1960)