Document: 329 U.S. 452 67 S.Ct. 401 91 L.Ed. 416 JESIONOWSKIv.BOSTON & M.R.R. No. 88. Argued Dec. 16, 1946. Decided Jan. 13, 1947. Mr.Thomas C. O'Brien, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Mr. Francis P. Garland, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner brought this action damages in Federal District Court under Employers Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 53 1404, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., U.S.C.A. causing death her intestate. Count I alleged that 'By reason a defect or insufficiency, due to negligence defendant, its car, track, roadbed, car upon which plaintiff decedent was riding derailed * *,' be thrown from and killed. II, without specifying any particular acts negligence, charged generally derailment decedent's were 'result defendant.' After evidence in, Court, at request respondent, directed jury return verdict respondent on first count. Respondent's motion verdict, second count ground failed justify finding it showed deceased killed as sole result his own overruled. The rendered petitioner judgment entered it. Circuit Appeals reversed remanded with directions render 154 F.2d 703. 2 trial court burden prove by fair preponderance deceased's caused respondent's negligence. It invoked rule may inferred unusual happenings growing out conditions defendant's control. Referring name res ipsa loquitur, charged: 'Of course if cause accident here cannot recover. And since there can no application doctrine loquitur other causes than agents servants, might have produced accident, is bound, she has burden, exclude operation such before applied. This so because are defendant said o exclusive control—one prerequisites invoked.' thought should not permitted draw an inference extraordinary general set circumstances included activities injured person, even though jury, proper instructions, could find person's did injury. Court's limitation jury's province interpretation raised question importance cases arising federal law. We granted certiorari consider question. 328 830, 66 1121. 3 testimony, far relevant, point issues briefly summarized. Four railroad cars being pushed backward eastward engine order put them siding north main track. duty deceased, brakeman, throw switch reached four would take siding. There he threw gave signal engineer back cars. sufficient authorize but compel negligently while lead movement straddled one wheels side other. If true, mean east move down line others enter when took place, thus probably derailment. had believed last astride thrown, been authorized, court's charge, But about 75 feet switch, where south rail track intersected frog. testimony frog operated spring mechanism, work passed over it, derailed. Some tended show that, time occurred, splinters planks into air near Other found they close some good condition after tracks used previously, showed, similar mishap. 4 In San Juan Light Transit Co. v. Requena, 224 89, 98, 99, 32 399, 401, 56 680, said: 'When thing injury, fault shown control injury such, ordinary things, does occur having uses care, affords reasonable evidence, absence explanation, arose want care.' Both prior case decided, acted varying types cases. Western Transportation Downer, 11 Wall. 129, 20 160; Inland Seaboard Coasting Tolson, 139 551, 555, 653, 654, 270; Gleeson Virginia M.R. Co., 140 435, 859, 458; Sweeney Erving, 228 233, 240, 33 416, 418, 57 815, Ann.Cas.1914D, 905. See also Southern Railway-Carolina Division Bennett, 233 80, 34 566, 58 860; Foltis, Inc. City New York, 287 N.Y. 108, 38 N.E.2d 455, collected, 153 A.L.R. 1134. thought, however, improperly pplied instrumentalities 'exclusive control' railroad; 'The Jesionowski's fault, corporation's fault.' 703, 705. 5 reasoning this: entitled submitted except loquitur. That rigidly defined prerequisites, apply must all things Here probable causative factors immediate switching signaling. 'Exclusive probable, factors, reasoned, means applied those non-exclusively controlled clearly causal connection accident. agree. Res applied, bar juries drawing account accidents operations person himself participated operations, proved viewpoint unduly restricts power decide questions fact, right inferences sufficiency support questions. A conceptualistic never reduce facts. Such narrows 6 said, 905, decision cut through mass verbiage built up around 'res facts occurrence warrant inference; furnish circumstantial direct lacking, weighed, necessarily accepted sufficient; call explanation rebuttal, require; make decided forestall verdict.' Thus, really whether relied fits squarely judicial definition, construed, hold were. 7 Derailments extraordinary, usual, happenings. When do occur, fairly occurred true happened deceased; although offered establish 'did satisfy jury.' Ry.-Carolina supra, page 86, 567. With freed negligent conduct signaling, we left ordinarily attributed only lack care railroad, agency involved. Once appropriately instructed, finds employee's derailment, remains controller run counter common everyday experience say throwing signaling contribute authority infer either trai maintenance uncontroverted both. think findings both railroad's did. 8 Respondent urges here, Appeals, judge complaint, justified submitting these respects held properly appeal 'a concise statement' required Rule 75(d) Rules Civil Procedure, 28 following section 723c. argues raised, specifically, 'the applicable case.' erred refused failure comply 75(d). 9 Reversed. 10 REED, JACKSON BURTON affirm grounds stated First Circuit.

Category: 7