Document: 338 U.S. 430 70 S.Ct. 226 94 L.Ed. 236 CARTERv.ATLANTA & ST. ANDREWS BAY RY. CO. No. 23. Argued Oct. 14, 1949. Decided Dec. 19, Mr. J. Kirkman Jackson, Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner. B. D. Murphy, Atlanta, Ga., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Federal Safety Appliance Acts require railroad cars used in interstate commerce to be equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact.1 This case brings before us review another action damages a employee under and Employers' Liability Act.2 trial court instructed jury that there could no liability based on any 'defect' 'automatic system,' but submitted issues negligence. There was verdict against plaintiff upon which judgment entered. Court Appeals affirmed. 170 F.2d 719. We granted certiorari because confusion has developed application two statutes. 336 935, 69 749. Our duty certain cases this nature is settled. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 1949, 53, 413; Keeton Thompson, 1945, 326 689, 66 135, 90 405; Ellis Union Pacific R. Co., 1947, 329 649, 67 598, 91 572. 2 On February 2, 1946, petitioner injured while acting as 'swing man' switching crew respondent railroad. five men were engaged at night operations near International Paper Company plant Panama City, Florida. conductor had laid out plan together number cars, some storage tracks one main line. ultimate objective switch wood rack loaded pulpwood into yard paper concern. In conductor's absence charge attempted carry instructions given him. 3 engine, after front it box car followed eight flat backing train onto line, order couple, end train, Louisville Nashville Railroad pulpwood. previously set brake opened both lips coupler L. N. preparatory attaching train. He footboard man slow signal ahead coupling, been passed engineer. engineer brought forward hit usual manner necessary instead started rolling down tracks, were, point, downgrade. 4 Petitioner saw not coupled ran fifty or sixty feet, climbed bulkhead where wheel located, applied hand stop car. able bring only left line traveled around curve six lengths. Looking up, he moving toward him about twenty feet away speed conflicting testimony places maximum fifteen miles per hour minimum hour. grabbed brace himself, so violently threw its hold. time successful, jerked from impact pitched petitioner, causing alleged injuries. 5 testified did know whether safely first impact. contended impact, received come-ahead whereupon moved sharp conflict reference signal, well other details incident. 6 Defendant directed failure couple ground failed initial 'it worked subsequently, proof shows defect it; finding Western Atlantic Gentle, (58 Ga.App. 282), 198 S.E. 257, rule law * se violation Act *.' District motion, instructing 'that evidence you properly find automatic system car.' affirmed theory: 'was remote, proximate, cause plaintiff's injuries.' 7 submit more general negligence allegations, these returned But objects those portions court's covering contributory admitted standing alone, 'might possibly have prejudicial,' stated here 'inconsequential.' 8 conclusions below error. 9 First. Since 1893 Congress made unlawful company such use 'not impact.' repeatedly make clear an absolute negligence, cannot aid if set3 occasion question. See O'Donnell Elgin, Joliet Eastern Ry. 384, 390, 200, 204, cited. fact functioned occasions immaterial. 10 contends when came rest 'its capacity doing harm spent.' second movement, argues, perfectly, new chain events resulting Carter's injury. 11 agree various divisible. two-pronged complaint, alleging right recover Act. situation test causal relation applicable, supplying wrongful act F.E.L.A. Moore Chesapeake Ohio 1934, 291 205, 216, 54 402, 406, 78 755; supra; Coray Southern 335 520, 275. Sometimes described 'negligence se,' H.R.Rep.No.1386, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 6; San Antonio A.P.R. Co. Wagner, 1916, 241 476, 484, 36 626, 629, 60 1110; we term confusing label what simply duty. 12 Once established, issue. And injury resulted 'in whole part' defendant's supra, page 523, 277, determines breach 'a proximate cause' injury, may plaintiff. also Hadley, 1918, 246 330, 333, 38 318, 319, 62 751; Spokane I.E.R. Campbell, 497, 510, 683, 1125. 13 Certainly between running stopping car, engineer's justified assumption do so, continued movement thus Layton, 1917, 243 617, 37 456, 61 931; Erie Caldwell, Cir., 1920, 264 F. 947. It error take phase jury. 14 Second. ruling petitioner's allegations fell errors negligence4 occur frequently will discuss them briefly. replete phrases as, 'if should his (the petitioner's) own whatever followed,' must With proper explanations, advised sole respondent; again directly proximately caused negligence,' railroad; contributed injury'; negligent manner,' are unable say inconsequential. violates direct command Congress. 'fact guilty shall bar recovery, diminished proportion amount attributable 35 Stat. 66, 45 U.S.C. § U.S.C.A. 53.5 jury, light comparison reached would justice all concerned. Tiller Coast Line 1943, 318 54, 65, 63 444, 450, 87 610, 143 A.L.R. 967. 15 reversed remanded further proceedings conformity opinion. 16 Reversed. 17 REED dissents. 18 view fasten contribute That too rapid effort. 19 Any deficiency cured modification instruction note 20 DOUGLAS took part consideration decision case. 21 FRANKFURTER. 22 Properly deeming industrial injuries inherently incidental conduct modern industry, throughout United States deals principle insurance, workmen's compensation laws thereby eliminated inevitably casuistic efforts apply concepts 'negligence,' (proximate 'contributory negligence' served enough employer-employee relations long since ceased. To 'negligence' 'proximate infinite complexities industry like catching butterflies without net. suffered employees, courts juries continue anachronistic remains. 23 Happily, however, said casuistries adjudicated three courts. As indispensable requirement functioning Court, our discretion decide whether, State wrestled phantoms cause, go it. A sustained employees course their employment compensated basis bound work injustice, hardships particular situations naturally present humane opportunities alleviation. stretching can change Act's character mischief does cruel survival by-gone era. inconsistent functions yield temptations taking conscientious appellate felt compelled justifiable dubious requirements even though contrary might taken. Where involves requiring pronouncement merely unique circumstances, alleviation criteria, forth Rule 38, governing Court's granting writ certiorari. 24 argument opinions dealing merits leave room doubt involved. difference professedly settled rules circumstances Three experienced judges found rendered defendant. division underlines unreasonably entertained they did. I am remotely suggesting result, deal merits. For me decisive that, involve evaluation facts record, fall within business 25 therefore dismiss improvidently granted. By encourages petitions discouraging them. save energy necessarily adjudicate due regard needs deliberative process. effective way respect considerations cease acquiescence disregard. 64, 413, 418 (concurring opinion). 'It common carrier haul permit hauled traffic uncoupled necessity going ends cars.' 27 531, 2. amended, §§ 51—59, 51—59. Myers Reading 331 477, 483, 1334, 1338, 1615. Respondent conceded, opposing certiorari, 'the violated *—a statement apparently abandoned now, Carter improperly. record here, course, allegations. violations Act, 'shall held purposes comparison. supra. argues remedied oral given. see conclusion; equivocal best. recites following: 'Mr. Pettus: Your Honor negligently recover. If couldn't omitted 'sole'. words, 'The Court: modify extent. means wholly responsible totally responsible, side. except latter your Honor's charge, 'would side.' brake, portion limiting saying cause. then reading written said, explanation, negligence.' asked explanatory rule, yur give time. think overlooked charging look rule. refuse charge. Refuse it? Yes. Give exception.'

Category: 7