Nelson v. Southern Railway Co.

246 U.S. 253, 38 S. Ct. 233, 62 L. Ed. 699, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1540
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 4, 1918
Docket129
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 246 U.S. 253 (Nelson v. Southern 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
Nelson v. Southern Railway Co., 246 U.S. 253, 38 S. Ct. 233, 62 L. Ed. 699, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1540 (1918).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brandeis

delivered the opinion of the court.

Nelson, a civil engineer who had been in the employ of the Southern Railway eleven years, was directed to make a survey in one of its yards. While doing so he walked on the main track between the rails where he had seen others walk. As he stepped upon a cross-tie, a small V-shaped piece of it one and a half inches by six, being rotten, slivered off under his weight. His foot slipped down between the ties where the ballast was five or six inches below the top of .the tie; and stumbling, he fell and dislocated his knee. The defect in the tie could have been discovered by sounding with an iron rod and the standard of maintenance of roadbed prescribed by the Railway was to ballast to the top of the ties. But neither the condition of the tie, nor the failure to ballast to the top of the tie, was a defect of a character to impair safety in operation. Plaintiff knew that there were always some ties on the line which were partly decayed, and also that the ballast was occasionally below the top óf the ties.

Upon these facts Nelson sought in a state court of North Carolina to recover damages from the Railway *255 under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The trial court refused defendant’s motion for a non-suit; and the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff. Judgment thereon was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State (170 N. Car. 170) on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence; and the case came here on writ of error.

It is clear that the defendant did not fail in any duty which it owed to the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
352 U.S. 521 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Labonte v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
131 N.E.2d 203 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)
Southern Railway Co. v. Turner
76 S.E.2d 96 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Fleming v. Husted
164 F.2d 65 (Eighth Circuit, 1947)
Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. Peeler
140 F.2d 865 (Eighth Circuit, 1944)
McClain v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co.
4 S.E.2d 280 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1939)
Virginian Ry. Co. v. Staton
84 F.2d 133 (Fourth Circuit, 1936)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Crawley
155 So. 568 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Jacobson v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & PR CO.
66 F.2d 688 (Eighth Circuit, 1933)
Elswood v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
23 P.2d 925 (Utah Supreme Court, 1933)
O'Brien v. Minnesota Western Railroad Co.
226 N.W. 209 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Murray
277 P. 703 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1929)
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Koske
279 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court, 1929)
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Aeby
275 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 1928)
Talbert v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad
284 S.W. 499 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1926)
Southern Railway Co. v. Chadwick
132 S.E. 191 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1926)
Pursglove v. Monongahela Ry.
131 A. 477 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Jackson v. Hanrahan
198 Iowa 704 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
Ebell v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co.
221 P. 1062 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
Bennett v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
191 Iowa 1333 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 U.S. 253, 38 S. Ct. 233, 62 L. Ed. 699, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-southern-railway-co-scotus-1918.