Arnold v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.

353 U.S. 360, 77 S. Ct. 840, 1 L. Ed. 2d 889, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 933
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 17, 1957
Docket240
StatusPublished
Cited by90 cases

This text of 353 U.S. 360 (Arnold v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co., 353 U.S. 360, 77 S. Ct. 840, 1 L. Ed. 2d 889, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 933 (1957).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U. S. 521; Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Futrelle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U. S. 925; Thomson v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 353 U. S. 926. The jury’s general verdict, that the respondent negligently contributed to the petitioner’s injury, has support in the testimony of witnesses justifying the inference that the passageway as used was not a safe place for the petitioner to work while performing his assigned duties. The special issues claimed to be in conflict with this finding concerned alleged negligence only in the [361]*361operation and presence of the truck on this passageway. But even if the rule announced by the Court of Civil Appeals controlled, as we see it these answers present no square conflict. The findings on these special issues do not exhaust all of the possible grounds on which the prior unsafe-place-to-work finding of the jury may have been based. Hence all of the findings in the case might well be true insofar as the record indicates. The petitioner having asserted federal rights governed by federal law, it is our duty under the Act to make certain that they are fully protected, as the Congress intended them to be. We therefore cannot accept interpretations that nullify their effectiveness, for . . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24. See Dice v. Akron, Canton & Y. R. Co., 342 U. S. 359; Brown v. Western R. Co., 338 U. S. 294. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dominguez v. City Of San Jose
N.D. California, 2023
Koehler v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
214 F. Supp. 3d 171 (E.D. New York, 2016)
Rattray v. WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA
788 F. Supp. 2d 839 (N.D. Iowa, 2011)
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Begley
313 S.W.3d 52 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2010)
Barrett v. Detroit Heading, LLC
311 F. App'x 779 (Sixth Circuit, 2009)
Lund v. San Joaquin Valley Railroad
71 P.3d 770 (California Supreme Court, 2003)
State v. Martinez
2003 MT 65 (Montana Supreme Court, 2003)
Hayes v. Arthur Young & Company
34 F.3d 1072 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Marks
749 S.W.2d 911 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Schutzky Distributors, Inc. v. Kelly
643 F. Supp. 57 (N.D. California, 1986)
Bender v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
600 S.W.2d 257 (Texas Supreme Court, 1980)
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Bender
582 S.W.2d 568 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Scott v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
572 S.W.2d 273 (Texas Supreme Court, 1978)
Morse v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
63 Cal. App. 3d 128 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
City of Homer v. Land's End Marine
459 P.2d 475 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1969)
Raymond Wattigney v. Southern Pacific Company
411 F.2d 854 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
353 U.S. 360, 77 S. Ct. 840, 1 L. Ed. 2d 889, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-panhandle-santa-fe-railway-co-scotus-1957.