Document: 344 U.S. 407 73 S.Ct. 358 97 L.Ed. 441 STONEv.NEW YORK, C., & ST. L.R. CO. No. 320. Argued Jan. 14, 1953. Decided Feb. 2, Rehearing Denied March 9, See 345 914, 639. Mr. Tyree C. Derrick, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Lon Hocker, respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was a member one respondent's section crews and while in course his employment severely injured back. He brought this action damages Missouri courts under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 36 291, 53 1404, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., U.S.C.A. seq. There jury trial verdict The Supreme Court reversed, holding that plaintiff had not made out submissible case either as to negligence or causation. Mo.Sup. 249 S.W.2d 442. is here on certiorari. 863, 107. 2 At time injury petitioner removing old worn track ties. rails would be jacked up, spikes held pulled, plates removed, tie pulled. ties were usually pulled with tongs by two men. If there any protruding downward from into ground, three four men required pull tie. 3 other ways remove stubborn One dig trench beside then roll trench. Another method jack rail up high enough so come free. objection ballast run produce hump track. way free half-rail length each side removed freeing sufficiently it could easily moved. This disadvantages active meant putting flag stopping trains. 4 day Stoughton, straw boss, used only first method. Fish together unable because, turned out, spike driven through ground. Stoughton told he pulling hard enough. put bar far end again. Still come. harder. said could. said, 'If you can't harder, I will get somebody will.' So petitioner, Fish, gave hurt finally men—two pulling, prying crow bar, hammering maul; extending 5 We think peculiarly jury. standard liability negligence. question what reasonable prudent person have done circumstances. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 53, 61, 69 413, 417, 93 497. boss additional tongs. also alternative methods difficult encountered crew stretch likelihood lifting beyond their capacity obvious. Whether light risks should another different failing do culpable issue. To us appears debatable issue which fair-minded differ. Cf. Bailey Central Vermont R. Co., 319 350, 353, 63 1062, 1064, 87 1444; Urie Thompson, 337 163, 178, 1018, 1028, 1282. experience ties, them, warning been could, command superior fact more than these circumstances—all facts comprise situation appraised determining whether respondent negligent. Those circumstances trier appraise. Blair Baltimore O.R. 323 600, 604, 65 545, 547, 89 490. employee, commanded act caused injury, protested does place risk him. Id., at page 605, 548. evidence causal connection between order harder petitioner's back injury. might likewise reach conclusions branch emphasizes appropriateness leaving Ellis Union Pacific 329 649, 653, 67 598, 91 572; Coray Southern 335 520, 523, 275, 277, 208; Carter Atlanta A.B.R. 338 430, 433, 70 226, 228, 94 236. 6 Reversed. 7 FRANKFURTER, whom REED JACKSON join, dissenting. 8 Act embodies common-law conception negligence, subject certain qualifications. Thereby has established national standards basis carriers injuries death railroad employees occupation. It authorized enforced several States well District Courts. Since federal statute State must conform standards. Thus, substantive limitations upon common law actions, instance those pertaining assumption waivers, heeded no matter local may be. 9 However, central components rests fault appropriate causality negligent complained-of injury—are same actions actions. For reasons long deplored, Congress seen fit make such concept compensation inevitably untoward incidents. 10 deplore because injustices crudities inherent applying concepts railroading. hazards requirements employ wholly inappropriate procedure—a procedure adequate simple situations adapted but brutally unfit requires put. result knowledge. Under guise suits distortions Act's application workmen's act, all social undesirabilities stakes occasional heavy damages, realized too often after years unedifying litigation. 11 difficulty utilizing vast range discretion issues leave judges conscientious decide, namely, warrant finding causality; words, first, judge's ruling go jury, and, secondly, duty appellate deciding court found basic enough, therefore, sustain plaintiff. That equally honest experienced judges, compassionate toward employee bereaved family, disagree questions, judge, seem, can deny. These questions assessing are very rulings regarding applicable jury's guidance. 12 Uniformity direction fitting myriad diversity essential. ultimately belongs fitted discharge. assess unique quite matter. And decisive reason right wrong objectively ascertainable, when competent independent devoid bias possessed bias, reasoning process opposite facts. 13 case. allowing allow forbid removal even citizenship exists. (These cases state thousands.) In thus entrusting enforcement presupposed, generality, competence judiciaries States, professional enforce self-critical fairness its purposes. When keeping courts, knew determination claim most elusive determinations called make. suggest this, known along, indulge fiction. composed predominantly lawyers aspect merest tyro. hardly assumed 1908 enacted reverse merely we they differed, where difference permissible, inevitable, concerning particular set 14 early emphatic proof sit judgment every majority view differently court. 1916 explicitly withdrew Court's mandatory jurisdiction left them reviewed involved substance. 39 726, 727. 15 dissent am clear understanding fairminded less cannot say not, did, hold 'did causation.' before reversed. once conclude entitled took substitute myself viewing facts, although primary responsibility take view.

Category: 7