Case Name: ARNOLD v. PANHANDLE & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1957-05-13
Citations: 353 U.S. 360
Docket Number: No. 240
Parties: ARNOLD v. PANHANDLE & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO.
Judges: whom Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Whittaker join,
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 353
Pages: 360–363

Head Matter:
ARNOLD v. PANHANDLE & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO.
No. 240.
Argued April 24-25, 1957.
Decided May 13, 1957.
James 0. Bean argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Henry D. Akin, Jr.
Charles L. Cobb argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Preston Shirley.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury's conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner's injury. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U. S. 521; Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Futrelle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U. S. 925; Thomson v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 353 U. S. 926. The jury's general verdict, that the respondent negligently contributed to the petitioner's injury, has support in the testimony of witnesses justifying the inference that the passageway as used was not a safe place for the petitioner to work while performing his assigned duties. The special issues claimed to be in conflict with this finding concerned alleged negligence only in the operation and presence of the truck on this passageway. But even if the rule announced by the Court of Civil Appeals controlled, as we see it these answers present no square conflict. The findings on these special issues do not exhaust all of the possible grounds on which the prior unsafe-place-to-work finding of the jury may have been based. Hence all of the findings in the case might well be true insofar as the record indicates. The petitioner having asserted federal rights governed by federal law, it is our duty under the Act to make certain that they are fully protected, as the Congress intended them to be. We therefore cannot accept interpretations that nullify their effectiveness, for . . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24. See Dice v. Akron, Canton & Y. R. Co., 342 U. S. 359; Brown v. Western R. Co., 338 U. S. 294. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.