Task: songer_stpolicy

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
Marco Anthony Mastrandrea, for whose death the administratrix of his estate seeks damages, was for many years a crossing watchman for the defendant railroad company. While in the performance of his duties as watchman at a main line crossing in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, he was struck by the side of the locomotive of a rapidly moving freight train and received injuries which caused his death almost immediately. The crossing was frequently traversed by trains engaged in interstate commerce, as was the train whose locomotive struck him.
In order to save from harm several children of tender years, whose actions gave indication of their intent to enter upon the crossing forthwith, Mastrandrea placed himself in a position of danger, in relation to the oncoming freight train, from which position he was unable to extricate himself in time to avoid being struck. In thus laying himself open to great danger in order to protect others, without thought of his own safety, his conduct was truly heroic.
But the plaintiff’s suit for damages, which, under the circumstances, was necessarily based upon the right of action conferred by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., required proof showing the defendant guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the fatal injuries received by Mastrandrea. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the record in the case is barren of any facts which would justify a jury’s finding that the defendant company, its agents, or servants failed to exercise ordinary care either in the operation of the train whose locomotive inflicted the fatal injuries or in any other particular relating to the accident. We, therefore, have no alternative under the law but to affirm the judgment of the court below, which ruled to like effect.
From the standpoint of a recovery by law for the death of this faithful employee in connection with his employment the case portrays an unfortunate legal situation. As we have seen, no recovery can be had under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, since the plaintiff was unable to prove the defendant negligent. On the other hand, there is no Federal compensation law applicable to the employees of carriers of interstate commerce by rail. And yet, the exclusive applicability of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, precluded a claim by Mastrandrea’s dependents for compensation under the State Compensation Law, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. Such a situation would seem to merit appropriate legislative consideration and correction.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: Did the interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D