Document: 342 U.S. 359 72 S.Ct. 312 96 L.Ed. 398 DICEv.AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN R. CO. No. 374. Argued Dec. 3, 4, 1951. Decided Feb. 1952. Mr. Rice A. Hershey, Akron, Ohio, for petitioner. William Kelly, respondent. Opinion of the Court by Justice BLACK, announced DOUGLAS. 1 Petitioner, a railroad fireman, was seriously injured when an engine in which he riding jumped track. Alleging that his injuries were due to respondent's negligence, brought this action damages under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., U.S.C.A. Ohio court common pleas. Respondent's defenses (1) denial negligence and (2) written document signed petitioner purporting release respondent full $924.63. Petitioner admitted had several receipts payments made him connection with but denied complete settlement all claims. He alleged purported void because it relying on deliberately false statement nothing more than mere receipt back wages. 2 After both parties introduced considerable evidence jury found favor awarded $25,000 verdict. The trial judge later entered judgment notwithstanding In doing so reappraised as fraud, been 'guilty supine negligence' failing read release, accordingly held facts did not 'sustain either law or equity allegations fraud clear, unequivocal convincing evidence.'1 This verdict reversed Appeals Summit County, ground federal law, controlled, jury's must stand there ample support its finding fraud. Supreme Court, one dissenting, Appeals' sustained court's action, holding that: federal, governed; petitioner, man ordinary intelligence who could read, bound even though induced sign only wages; (3) controlling factual issues execution properly decided rather jury. 155 St. 185, 98 N.E.2d 301. We granted certiorari decision appeared deviate from previous decisions governs cases arising Act. 811, 59. 3 First. agree dissenting hold validity releases Act raises question be determined state law. Congress right recover against employer negligently inflicted. State laws are determining what incidents shall be. Chesapeake Co. v. Kuhn, 284 44, 52 45, 76 157; Ricketts Pennsylvania Co., Cir., 153 F.2d 757, 759, 164 A.L.R. 387. Manifestly rights affording relief employees federally declared standard defeated if states permitted have final say interposed suits Moreover, controls can given uniform application throughout country essential effectuate purposes. See Garrett Moore-McCormack 317 239, 244, 63 246, 250, 87 cited. Releases other devices designed liquidate defeat employees' claims play important part Act's administration. Compare Duncan Thompson, 315 1, 62 422, 86 575. Their is many interrelated questions constantly these according 4 Second. effect employee trusts at peril, innocent worker sufficient enable benefit deliberate Application harsh rule employee's claim wholly incongruous general policy give just compensation inflicted their employers. And out harmony modern judicial legislative practice relieve persons fraudulently obtained. collected note, 402—415. also Union Pacific Harris, 158 326, 15 843, 39 1003; Callen 332 625, 68 296, 92 242; O.R. Howard, 14 App.D.C. 262, affirmed 178 153, 20 880, 44 1015; Graham Atchison, T. S.F.R. 9 176 819. correct Court—a material statements railroad's authorized representatives deceive contents release. charge correctly stated 5 Third. provides has here accorded usual relating negligence. But treats fraudulent differently. It permits trying case resolve 'other factum.' issue thus split into fragments, some judge, others 6 contended since may consistently Constitutional provide nonunanimous verdict, Minneapolis Louis Bombolis, 241 211, 36 595, 60 961, lawfully eliminate phase while allowing raised. Bombolis might point abolished including those done this. provided trials seeks single determination Testa Katt, 330 386, 67 810, 91 967. 7 previously 'The 'a basic fundamental feature our system jurisprudence" 'part parcel remedy afforded workers Act.' Bailey Central Vermont 319 350, 354, 1062, 1064, 1444. recognized deprive where 'is take away goodly portion them.' follows too substantial permit classified 'local procedure' manner used. Brown Western 338 294, 70 105, 94 100. 8 erred petitioner's taking submitted conflicting favor. should Ohio. cause remanded further inconsistent opinion. ordered. 10 Reversed directions. 11 FRANKFURTER, whom REED, JACKSON BURTON join, concurring reversal Court's 12 do States,1 maintains old division between mode issues, same administers both. told us what, issue, functions actions courts: 'Where claimed (other factum) mistake, * necessary, before seeking enforce such purports bar, equitable secured.' 186, 301, 304. Thus, trier fact requires courts send founded To require try particular different fact-finder identical every disregards settled distribution power authorizes concurrent enforcement federally-created rights. 13 ever Second Cases (Mondou New York, N.H. H.R. Co.) 223 32 169, 56 327, no gives jurisdiction over deny access Nor discriminate disadvantageously compared local causes McKnett 292 230, 234, 54 690, 692, 78 1227; Missouri ex rel. Southern Mayfield, 340 71 95 3. Conversely, however, simply duty treat differently way adjudicates far mechanics litigation, forms administered, concerned. surely covers case. 1916 without dissent States entertaining need established actions. compelled required Seventh Amendment. L.R. 961. thirty-six years early after enactment 65 (1908), often cited never questioned. Until today significance leave choice fact-finding tribunal actions, Chief White's opinion cannot bear any meaning: 'Two propositions operation 7th Amendment conclusively concerning nature character applicable. (a) That first ten Amendments, course, 7th, concerned deal action. select multitude we deem leading: Barron Baltimore, Pet. 243, 672; Fox How. 410, 434, 213, 223; Twitchell Commonwealth, Wall. 321, 19 Jersey, 175 172, 174, 77 (78), 119, 120; Twining 211 78, 93 (29 14, 17), 53 97, 103. And, necessary corollary, (b) applies proceedings United States, does whatever govern regulate courts, standards applied same. Livingston Moore, 469, 552, 751, 781; Justices Murray, Wall, 274, 658; Edwards Elliott, 21 532, 22 487; Walker Sauvinet, 90, 23 678; Pearson Yewdall, 24 436.' page 217, 596. 16 'And was, presumably appreciation principles thoroughly caused Congress, employers' liability act, clearly contemplate existence administer conferred statute accordance modes procedure prevailing courts.' 218, 597. 17 proposition that, upon provisions therefore applicable created right, substance creates confusion true obscured. is, shuts view limitations appliable exercised tribunals terms relation forums merely enforced States.' pages 219—220, 18 Although entertain entertains conduct them conducts run litigation. directly establishes impose requirements pro tanto If reasoning means anything, chooses all, court, certainly juries courts. Or, retain double equity—as good until day, four still do2—surely traditional authority disposing legal chancery go board. free make makes rational difference whether preside sides instead separate rooms building. So long treated way, equitable, non-jury, nor inroad substance. her sister similar evade Act; they difficult recover, suing exercise preference adhering historic ways dealing fraud; prefer making unavailable through otherwise valid defense. judges lawyers trained practice; multiplies difficulties anc confuses administration justice require, purely theoretical grounds, hybrid class cases. Nothing forty forces hybridization States. well seems strange basis inference overrode procedural arrangements State, imposing plaintiffs choose rules regarding juries. Such admissible, me, theory included assumed likelihood favorable plaintiffs. At least, plaintiff's Employers Act,' overruled explicitly left derelict occasion collisions waters put squarely seem precisely will roused minds pressing clients' interests appellate called apply thing borrow trouble morrow. another create Even method cases, two remain decision: Should tested standard? one, present afford enforcing Congress. They depreciate currency issued Congress—either expressly methods accomplish result. Davis Wechsler, 263 22, 24, 13, 143. order prevent diminution workers' nationally-uniform contested Federal. recently said: 'One attacks burden showing contract tainted invalidity, practiced mutual mistake acted.' 630, 298, 242. proof preponderance relevant evidence. 1003. tending show valid, presumptions drawn hobble would unjust allow formally defense prevail. 5, 66, 55, 55. releases, interpret assured matter criteria coincide. confidence correctly. duly 'the pleaded proved bar vitiates compromise rests party attacking release.' extended analysis circumstances concluding, 'clear, convicing evidence' Since elusive words fail assure followed test larger quantum proof, return sole charged 'by clear evidence,' challenge heavy Chafee, Simpson, Maloney, Equity (1951 ed.) 12. Ibid.

Category: 7