Document: 366 U.S. 161 81 S.Ct. 937 6 L.Ed.2d 184 Bert SMITH, Petitioner,v.J. Turner BUTLER et al., Trustees. No. 313. Argued March 27 and 28, 1961. Decided April 24, Rehearing Denied May 29, See 941, 1657. Mr. William S. Frates, Miami, Fla., for petitioner. Harold B. Wahl, Jacksonville, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition certiorari in this case raised solely a question regarding the bearing of Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 seq. on enforcement Federal Employers' Liability 51 was granted. 364 869, 113, 5 92. After full argument due consideration, it became manifest that course litigation decisions Florida courts did not turn issue basis which Accordingly, writ is dismissed. 2 Justice BRENNAN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACK join, dissenting. 3 I cannot agree that, as Court says, 'raised Act Act.' actually tendered familiar one whether reviewing court properly deprived an FELA claimant jury verdict ground evidence insufficient to support finding carrier's negligence. relies upon 'the courts.' My reading what occurred makes me under Question Presented sufficiency proofs establish 4 petitioner flagman employ East Coast Railway. He brought action U.S.C. seq., Circuit Dade County, Florida. alleged he suffered injuries his employment while taking 'field test' carrier required him take along its right way tracks eight grounds negligence but has abandoned six we are concerned only two, namely violated '(a) (I)n negligently unlawfully requiring plaintiff participate such test'; (b) allowing servants, agents or supervisors conduct test." At close petitioner's at trial, made motion dismiss claim allogations (a) (b), those allegations 'pertain give field test.' Respondents contended claim, if cognizable all, grievance within exclusive cognizance National Railroad Adjustment Board created 153, First (i), subd. 1(i); see Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price, 360 601, 79 1351, 1460. trial judge denied ruled gravamen respondents could require test, 'knowing physical condition,' negligent particular test. also directed grounded insufficiency returned District Appeal, Third District, reversed remanded new trial. 104 So.2d 868. On remand counsel both parties discussed length Appeal held. There agreement opinion ambiguous. It might be read reversal by cause pleaded tried actionable but, Act. This suggested language opinion, 'If appellee were aggrieved, had remedy pages 869—870. other hand, interpreted grounding prove negligence, because petitioner, assuming failed show circumstances proved Support interpretation statement '(T)he appellee's entire reflected record conclusively indicates premised appellant's test unlawful all damages resulted from act.' page 870. finally concluded resting latter ground. stated, 'I think am inclined (petitioner's counsel) they (the Appeal) just didn't say improper. They said, 'requiring test,' conducted when wrote their means anything us have got follow extent our words meant.' further part giving 'would included' allegation above quoted. 7 thus plainly reveals agreed complaint pleaded, tried, 8 Counsel admitted during colloquy Carrier's went further. so far justify it, want travel issue, amend.' Petitioner's willing amend insisted been theory no amendment necessary. No formal made, obviously embraced (a). However, desired apply review Appeal's determination rested, present But, since ordered there final judgment sought until entered retrial. In order obtain without retrying case, proffered first proof expressly stated position sufficient 'to railroad either knew should known Smith physically unable likely injured took spite known, gave accepted proffer over objection, bound holding suffice raise '(U)nder testimony adduced before point, would rule proper submit testimony.' accordingly entry favor carrier. Obviously second time gloss judge's Court's earlier opinion. Therefore, per curiam, affirmed 'upon authority' previous 118 237, affirmance sustained having precluded recovery statute. Supreme Florida, unreported minute, certiorari. We granted Court, 9 Against background courts' Presented, plain English ordinary meaning, correctly determined knowing condition, For follows: 10 'Did Appellate err employee sustains personal performing fitness provisions Section 151, (45 seq.) preclude claiming facts act U.S.C., 51, seq.)?' (Emphasis supplied.) 11 Although members disagreed grant these cases, here except my Brother Frankfurter believe duty decide them merits. Viewing presented record. need rely own conclusion 'whether reason employer played part, even slightest, producing injury * sought.' Rogers Missouri Co., 352 500, 506, 77 443, 448, 493. may summon concession it.' reverse direction enter reinstating 12 DOUGLAS joins believes correct fair one. Butler Smith,

Category: 7