Atlantic City Railroad v. Parker

Supreme Court

Atlantic City Railroad v. Parker

242 U.S. 56, 37 S. Ct. 69, 61 L. Ed. 150, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1529

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 4, 1916

Docket111

StatusPublished

Cited by53 cases

This text of 242 U.S. 56 (Atlantic City Railroad v. Parker) 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

Atlantic City Railroad v. Parker, 242 U.S. 56, 37 S. Ct. 69, 61 L. Ed. 150, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1529 (1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the defendant in error to recover for the loss of an arm crushed while he was coupling a tender to a car.' ThereJs no dispute that the case is governed by the- Acts of Congress — the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, §§ 2, 8; 27 Stat. 531, *59 and the Employers’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c.-149, §§ 3, 4; 35,Stat. 65. The facts material here are few. The engine had backed for the purpose of coupling with the car and had failed to couple automatically by impact. Thereupon the plaintiff, noticing that thedrawhead' was not in line with the one on the'engine, put in his arm for the purpose of straightening (it and thus making the coupling possible, and was caught. An exception was taken to the refusal of a ruling that no negligence was shown on the part of the Railroad Company, but the Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court below. 87 N. J. L, 148.

If there was evidence that the railroad failed to furnish Such “couplers coupling automatically by impact” as the statute requires (Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S. 1, 18, 19), nothing else needs to be considered. We are of opinion that there was enough evidence to go to the jury upon that point. No doubt there are arguments that the' jury should have decided the other way. Some lateral play must be allowed lo drawheads,' and further, the car was on a curvé,which- of course would tend to throw the coupler out of line. - But the jury were warranted in finding that the curve was so slight as not to" affect the case and in regarding the track as for this purpose a straight line. If couplers failed to couple auto-, matically upon a straight track it.at least may be said that a jury would be warranted in finding that a lateral play so great as to prevent coupling was not needed, and that, in the absence of any explanation believed by them, the failure indicated'that the railroad had'not fully complied' with the law. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, 571. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 320, 321. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U. S. 476, 484.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the defendant in error to recover for the loss of an arm crushed while he was coupling a tender to a car.' ThereJs no dispute that the case is governed by the- Acts of Congress — the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, §§ 2, 8; 27 Stat. 531, *59 and the Employers’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c.-149, §§ 3, 4; 35,Stat. 65. The facts material here are few. The engine had backed for the purpose of coupling with the car and had failed to couple automatically by impact. Thereupon the plaintiff, noticing that thedrawhead' was not in line with the one on the'engine, put in his arm for the purpose of straightening (it and thus making the coupling possible, and was caught. An exception was taken to the refusal of a ruling that no negligence was shown on the part of the Railroad Company, but the Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court below. 87 N. J. L, 148.

If there was evidence that the railroad failed to furnish Such “couplers coupling automatically by impact” as the statute requires (Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S. 1, 18, 19), nothing else needs to be considered. We are of opinion that there was enough evidence to go to the jury upon that point. No doubt there are arguments that the' jury should have decided the other way. Some lateral play must be allowed lo drawheads,' and further, the car was on a curvé,which- of course would tend to throw the coupler out of line. - But the jury were warranted in finding that the curve was so slight as not to" affect the case and in regarding the track as for this purpose a straight line. If couplers failed to couple auto-, matically upon a straight track it.at least may be said that a jury would be warranted in finding that a lateral play so great as to prevent coupling was not needed, and that, in the absence of any explanation believed by them, the failure indicated'that the railroad had'not fully complied' with the law. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, 571. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 320, 321. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U. S. 476, 484.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 U.S. 56, 37 S. Ct. 69, 61 L. Ed. 150, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-city-railroad-v-parker-scotus-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack