Document: 338 U.S. 384 70 S.Ct. 200 94 L.Ed. 187 O'DONNELLv.ELGIN, J. & E. RY. CO. No. 56. Argued Oct. 21, 1949. Decided Dec. 12, Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1950. See 945, 427. Mr. Joseph D. Ryan, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Harlan L. Hackbert, respondent. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This action was brought under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51—60, U.S.C.A. 51—60. The complaint mingled in a single count or cause charges general negligence and specific charge that defendant 'carelessly negligently' violated Safety Appliance § 2, by operating car not equipped with prescribed coupler. jury found against plaintiff judgment affirmed Court Appeals. 171 F.2d 973. result must stand if properly instructed, as to which Appeals divided. 2 O'Donnell, whose administratrix is petitioner here below, met an unwitnessed death while working defendant's yards member its switching crew. When last seen, he going adjust couplers on certain cars previously had failed couple impact. Shortly after his departure, breaking coupler, two broke loose from cut being moved operation. Running free, they collided other standing drove them those decedent said adjust. Some time later decedent's mangled body lying across one rail track intended prepare coupling stood. That gone between suggested fact coupled upon impact colliding cars, though so do. Petitioner's contention, all circumstances proved, O'Donnell's proximately caused permitted run strike unexpected movement O'Donnell engaged. Respondent contends indicate instead resulted independent when runaway were hauled out—an event took place before discovery but collision sets cars. We need resolve conflict these competing theories causation, decision jury. Ellis v. Union Pacific R. Co., 329 649, 653, 67 598, 600, 91 572. 3 Our concern effect accorded trial court's instructions issue defined Appeals: 'The record devoid any request be instructed might infer District contended tendered theory coupler itself per se. court refused instruct.' at page 976. Appeals, dissent, sustained this refusal charge, saying, 'We do believe Act required furnish would break. think true rule where does break, may, it reasonable circumstances, defective furnished used violation Act. cases go no further than hold may negligence.' As view appears laid down jurisdictions,1 we granted certiorari. 337 929, 69 1495. 4 A close literal reading 2,2 suggests functions only are couplers: automatically uncouple without requiring men ends construction finds some support decisions. See, e.g., St. Louis San Francisco Co. Conarty, 238 243, 250, 35 785, 786, 59 1290; B. Q.R. United States, 220 559, 571, 31 612, 614, 55 582; Louisville Nashville Layton, 243 617, 37 456, 61 931; Johnson Southern 196 1, 18, 25 158, 161, 162, 49 363. also States D.C. 1905, 135 F. 122, 127; Chesapeake Ohio Charlton, Cir., 1917, 247 34, 40; M., P. P.R. Linehan, 8 1933, 66 373, 377; Penn Chicago N.W.R. 7 1947, 163 995, 997. 5 Courts times have held, however, failure remain until released constitutes evidences just their sides stated Second Circuit, 'is aimed insuring will together.' Keenan Director General Railroads, 1922, 285 286, 290; Philadelphia R.R. Eisenhart, 280 271; Erie Caldwell, 6 1920, 264 947; Thomas, 21 Ariz. 355, 188 268; Kowalski 159 Minn. 388, 199 N.W. 178; McAllister Merchants' Bridge Terminal 324 Mo. 1005, S.W.2d 791; Saxton Delaware Hudson 256 N.Y. 363, 176 N.E. 425; Stewart Wabash 105 Neb. 812, 182 496. And see Reetz E.R. 1931, 46 50. been case nature ever it. Minneapolis Gotschall, 244 66, 995. Minneapolis, Paul Sault Ste. Marie Goneau, 269 406, 129, 335. It hard defect greater danger inheres workmen, travelers whom railroad owes duty, running uncontrolled tracks. find difficult read require appliances meantime. construed guard dangers incident effecting engagement disengagement ignoring even hazards can perform main function, stay released. requires which, secure effected, set free purposeful act control. What then should consequence provide perform? Should liability merely injuries resulting failure? 9 arguments case, well others, language many opinions texts reflect widespread confusion federal safety applicance statute.3 Part traceable diversity judicial concerning consequences attributed actions statute.4 Breach statutes various jurisdictions regarded evidence negligence, weighed along facts. Hayes Michigan Central 111 228, 240, 369, 374, 28 410; McDonald, 152 262, 283, 14 619, 627, 38 434. At places, statutes, 'prima facie' 'presumptive' meet overcome. E.g., Voiles Hunt, 213 Iowa 1234, 240 703. sometimes talk terms res ipsa loquitur, cf. supra, treat violations Antonio A.R.R. Wagner, 241 476, 484, 36 626, 629, 60 1110; Watts Montgomery Traction 175 Ala. 102, 57 So. 471; Evans Klusmeyer, 301 352, 359, S.W. 1036, 1037-1038. uncommon within same jurisdiction different statutes. Martin Herzog, 228 164, 168, 126 814, 815. But usually, unless statute up special breach, becomes ingredient, lesser weight, determining ultimate question negligence. 10 early swept issues out For reasons forth length our books, held equipment actionable wrong, way dependent proximate results there liability—a cannot escaped proof care diligence. Louis, Iron Mountain Taylor, 210 281, 294, 616, 620, 52 1061; 575—577, 615—617, Delk 580, 590. These rigorous holdings more recently epitomized Chief Hughes, speaking Court: statutory based carrier's duty imposed absolute one, carrier excused showing care, however assiduous.' Brady Railroad Ass'n 303 10, 15, 58 426, 429, 82 614. 11 Notwithstanding Court's efforts distinguish appliance common law persists,—in part, least, due anomalous procedure such claims litigated. non-negligence claim, violation, pursued basically form predicated negligence.5 often joined sometimes, here, mongrel action. In addition, trial, causation extent injury, example, both causes All has much borrowing deal cases. so, 'If violated, sense want immaterial', went nevertheless say treated 'as 'negligence,'—what called se.' A.P.R. 630. 12 contention involved maxim applicable charged instruction requested plaintiff. opposed instruction. Court, anticipatory upheld objection. Since recovered verdict, affirming, occasion consider whether entitled favorable charge. negativing railroad's objection inconsistent headnote holding 'that, inferred mere opening couplers.' supra (244 598). Thus vocabulary appropriated uses, comes dominate thought. 13 longer insist technical rules pleading, segregate counsel separate preparation thinking. unfortunately prolonged course litigation small part heed admonition Seventh Circuit similar case: 'Of course, proper plead paragraph, necessarily fatal especially adversary makes objection.' Vigor 1939, 101 865, 869. Pleadings serve purpose sharpening limiting separately acts.6 matter how pleadings allowed stand, almost indispensable intelligible clear separation kinds observed impressed. submitted whole indiscriminately case. hardly reversible error, pleaded tried requests entirely scrambling illustrates admitted, considered that, repeated holdings, immaterial Acts. 15 plaintiff, add nothing incurred producing Here affirmative and, far find, uncontradicted testimony 'a partial fracture inside coupler' indicating weakened old defect. However important added direct made 16 stressed operation concurrently emergency stop. Such material certainly withstand stress strain ordinary operation, grades, loadings, stops starts, including stops. escape coupler's inadequacy too demanded it, nor manufactured, diligently inspected showed visible defects. negligence; but, explain away enough Act.7 17 Criticism petitioner's sufficiently specific. somewhat statement cast true. pertinent present decided. deciding did, fallen into error. make examination insofar related claim peremptory equip rendered liable therefrom, neither diligence liability. 18 Reversed. 19 FRANKFURTER, DOUGLAS MINTON consideration 20 BURTON, REED concurs, dissenting. agree Acts contain mandatory requirement moving interstate traffic 'will control.'1 Congress legislated, did section 'efficient hand brakes; * *.'2 Myers Reading 331 477, 1334, 1615. However, so. Accordingly, judge, phase justified omitting thereby 22 view, separating broken could prohibition using 'not impact, uncoupled necessity cars.'3 865. Cf. adequately effect. 286; Merchants 1930, 1014, 791, 796; 360—361, 268, 270; 1924, 392—393, 178, 180; 425. 868; Western Atlantic Gentle, 1938, Ga.App. 282, 295, 198 S.E. 257, 265. 'It shall unlawful engaged commerce haul permit line cars.' 995; 361, 257; Roberts, Liabilities Carriers, 655 et seq., 789, 790 (2d ed. 1929); Shearman Redfield Negligence, 183 (rev. 1941); Thornton, Acts, 289, 302, 311 (3d 1916); Richey's Liability, Appliance, Hours Service 56 217, 252 1916). discussions problem illustrative cases, Prosser Torts, 39; Harper, Law 78; Bohlen, Cases pp. 187—204 1930); 11, Restatement 286—288; Thayer, Public Wrong Private Action, 27 Harv.L.Rev. 317; Lowndes, Civil Created Criminal Legislation, Minn.L.Rev. 361. Section 51, provides 'That every damages injury reason insufficiency, *.' Seaboard Air Line Ry. Horton, 233 492, 501—502, 34 635, 638, 639, 1062, L.R.A.1915C, Ann.Cas.1915B, 475. This, all, command Rule 10(b), Rules Procedure, U.S.C.A., provides: 'All averments defense numbered paragraphs, contents each limited practicable Professor Moore, discussing reference grounds, states: 'Separate counts required; paragraphing setting grounds above desirable required.' Moore's Practise, 2006—2007 1948). never effectively defend adequate because through intervening defectiveness such, work saboteur. necessary situation improperly set, since facts us. Supra, 389, p. 203. Stat. 298, 11. 531, 2.

Category: 7