Rutledge v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co.

Fifth Circuit

Rutledge v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co.

129 F. 94, 63 C.C.A. 596, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4021

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1904

DocketNo. 1,317

StatusPublished

This text of 129 F. 94 (Rutledge v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rutledge v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co., 129 F. 94, 63 C.C.A. 596, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4021 (5th Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

SHELBY, Circuit Judge,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

If the plaintiff jumped or stepped off the train while it was moving at such a rate as to make his act obviously dangerous, he was unquestionably guilty of contributory negligence, and would not be entitled to recover. 2 Wood on Railroads (Minor’s Ed. 1894) § 305; Watkins v. Birmingham, etc., Company, 120 Ala. 147, 24 South. 392, 43 L. R. A. 297. But if it be true that the train was stopped to let him get off, and when he was in the act of getting off, and without being allowed a reasonable time for that purpose, it was suddenly started again with a jerk, whereby he was injured, he would be entitled to recover. Bartholomew v. New York Central Railroad Company, 102 N. Y. 716, 7 N. E. 623; Jeffersonville Railroad Company v. Hendricks Adm’r, 26 Ind. 228-233. We are of. the opinion that the evidence in the record shows that the question of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. Nelson v. New Orleans, etc., Railroad, 100 Fed. 731, 40 C. C. A. 673, and cases there cited; Mexican Central Railroad v. Townsend, 114 Fed. 737, 52 C. C. A. 369.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

PARDEE, Circuit Judge, dissents.

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

SHELBY, Circuit Judge,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

If the plaintiff jumped or stepped off the train while it was moving at such a rate as to make his act obviously dangerous, he was unquestionably guilty of contributory negligence, and would not be entitled to recover. 2 Wood on Railroads (Minor’s Ed. 1894) § 305; Watkins v. Birmingham, etc., Company, 120 Ala. 147, 24 South. 392, 43 L. R. A. 297. But if it be true that the train was stopped to let him get off, and when he was in the act of getting off, and without being allowed a reasonable time for that purpose, it was suddenly started again with a jerk, whereby he was injured, he would be entitled to recover. Bartholomew v. New York Central Railroad Company, 102 N. Y. 716, 7 N. E. 623; Jeffersonville Railroad Company v. Hendricks Adm’r, 26 Ind. 228-233. We are of. the opinion that the evidence in the record shows that the question of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. Nelson v. New Orleans, etc., Railroad, 100 Fed. 731, 40 C. C. A. 673, and cases there cited; Mexican Central Railroad v. Townsend, 114 Fed. 737, 52 C. C. A. 369.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

PARDEE, Circuit Judge, dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 F. 94, 63 C.C.A. 596, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutledge-v-new-orleans-n-e-r-co-ca5-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack