Document: 331 U.S. 477 67 S.Ct. 1334 91 L.Ed. 1615 MYERSv.READING CO. No. 367. Argued Feb. 6, 1947. Decided June 2, Mr. B. Nathaniel Richter, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. Henry R. Heebner, respondent. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion Court. 1 This action damages alleged to have been caused petitioner by respondent's use, in violation Safety Appliance Acts,1 a railroad freight car not equipped with efficient hand brakes, presents question whether evidence at trial, inferences that jury justifiably could draw from it, was sufficient support verdict We hold it was. 2 The brought District Court United States Eastern Pennsylvania petitioner, John Myers, against his employer, Reading Company. He claimed he received personal injuries use interstate commerce, its yards Port Richmond, defective brake Acts requiring such cars be 'efficient brakes.'2 At close evidence, respondent moved directed verdict. motion granted, and returned $5,000 favor then set aside judgment entered favor.3 On December 28, 1945, this granted so entered. D.C., 63 F.Supp. 817. May 20, 1946, Circuit Appeals Third affirmed judgment, per curiam. 155 F.2d 523. certiorari order review procedure, case based upon Acts, light our decision rendered on March 25, Lavender v. Kurn, 327 645, 66 740, 90 421, subsequent trial case. testified following: 3 11, 1944, working as conductor charge crew consisting an engineer, fireman two brakemen. had employed six or seven years, rising rank crossing watchman and, five months immediately preceding worked practically every day job which engaged when injured. about nine o'clock evening string coal yard track where coupled those three others. One brakemen, new day, made coupling him 'to tie hand-brakes on'—that is, tighten them insure further movements slightly graded track. brakeman did this, but before left checked over saw brakes were all on, because one chain, instead being wrapped around shaft, hanging loose. climbed up platform, eight feet above ground, set, tried turning wheel. While doing carried signaling lantern arm through handle. As condition operation testified: 4 'A. I tightening brake—it kind stiff sticking—it pretty hard signal get on. 5 'Q. With ordinary wheel, do you difficulty wheel? A. Not ordinarily. 6 What difference between wheel It stiff, like spring—like shoe kicking back. 7 And started try it? That is right. 8 brake—just quick—I felt something slack run out, getting ready uncouple. 9 feel your car? A quick jar, took 'stop.' (Indicating.) 10 signal? signaled 'stop' best went down; lost my down went. 11 happened handbrake while holding kicked 12 mean that? putting way (indicating), right back off. 13 Could couldn't. 14 Was pulled on? Oh, no. 15 you? Down went.'4 16 found, special verdict, brake; inefficiency contributed petitioner; train move after shifted standing cars; ad thrown moving train.5 thus reached factual conclusions supporting general reducing legal basis recovery brakes. 17 only us there probative 18 There absolute unqualified prohibition using permitting used, line, any brakes.'6 In speaking prohibition, imposed same Section 'secure holds grab irons,' Chief Hughes said: 19 'This final must determined nature obligation resting carrier relation car. statutory liability carrier's negligence. duty one, excused showing care, however assiduous.' Brady Terminal Ass'n, 303 10, 15, 58 426, 429, 82 614, cases cited. 20 See also, Atlantic City Co. Parker, 242 56, 59, 37 69, 70, 61 150 (automatic couplers required 27 Stat. 531, 45 U.S.C. § U.S.C.A. 2); Great Northern Otos, 239 349, 351, 26 124, 125, 60 322 (couplers); Chicago & Q.R. States, 220 559, 574, 575, 31 612, 615, 616, 55 582; St. Louis, Iron Mountain S.R. Taylor, 210 281, 294, 295, 28 620, 621, 52 1061 (couplers drawbars); Spotts Baltimore O.R. Co., Cir., 102 160, 162 (hand brakes). 21 simplifies issue beyond presented under Federal Employers' Liability Act plaintiff establish negligence employer. Here necessary find subject may found liable if reasonably can infer merely 'efficient' brake. Furthermore— 22 'There are recognized methods equipment. Evidence adduced some particular defect, established failure function, operated due normal, natural, usual manner.' Didinger 39 798, 799. 23 'Proof actual break visible defect appliance prerequisite finding statute has violated. Where finds violation, will sustained, proof mechanism failed work efficiently properly even though both occasion question. test fact erformance applicance. Philadelphia R.R. Auchenbach, 550. Efficient means adequate performance; producing desired effect. Inefficient capable effect; incapable; incompetent; inadequate. 24 '* * testimony used normal manner inefficiently, throwing substantial make jury. Detroit, T. I.R. Hahn, 47 59. other words, we cannot say matter law might would defendant plaintiff.' supra, page 162. 25 Wild Pitcairn, 347 Mo. 915, 149 S.W.2d 800; Newkirk Los Angeles Junction Cal.2d 308, 131 P.2d 535. consisted functional resulting, either case, knocking platform experienced man attempting customary described testimony. descriptive precise mechanical defects structure was, however, simple direct brake's defectiveness sense Acts. After attempted chain still hung loose, indicating set. When partially tightened familiar operation, differed 'it back.' 'pulled on,' 'kicked back,' couldn't 'down' resulted serious different possible, jury, heard petitioner's illustrations handling brake, questions fact. entitled evidence. From presented, find, (1) (2) injury face court erred entering accordance subject, suggested, employees comparable workmen's compensation law.7 common carrier, resulting comply here tested formula Improvement Munson, Wall. 442; Slocum New York Life Ins. 228 364, 33 523, 57 879, Ann.Cas.1914D, 1029; Tennant Peoria P.U.R. 321 29, 64 409, 88 520; supra. requirement facts supporting, reason, conclusion expressed 29 'Petitioner present causal inferred. 'The essentil requirem ent mere speculation allowed making allowance possible favoring party whose attacked.' Galloway 319 372, 395, 1077, 1089, 87 1458; *.' pages 32, 33, 411, 520. 30 Blair 323 600, 65 545, 89 490; Southern 320 476, 232, 239; Chamberlain, 288 333, 343, 53 391, 77 819; Western A.R. Hughes, 278 496, 49 231, 73 473; Groeger, 266 521, 524, 169, 170, 69 419. 'Only complete absence does reversible error appear. But where, here, evidentiary jury's free discard disbelieve whatever inconsistent conclusion. appellate court's function exhausted becomes apparent, immaterial contrary inference another more reasonable.' 653, 744, 421. 32 believe given originally Accordingly, sustaining hereby reversed. Reversed. 'Sec. 2. *, shall unlawful provisions (of April 14, 1910) haul, permit hauled appliances provided Act, wit: All secure sill steps brakes; ladders running boards boards, having also irons their roofs tops ladders: (Italics supplied.) 36 298, 11. note 1, 'Rule 50. Motion Directed Verdit. '(b) Reservation Decision Motion. Within days reception who thereon verdict; *. If allow stand reopen entry requested directed. *' Rules Civil Procedure, following section 723c. Further stated fall. Other supported claim, 35 65, 1404, 51, negligent trying without direction him. charge, disposed stating move, strengthening force fall stiffness kickback follows: '1. brake? Answer 'yes' 'no.' (Answer) No '2. contribute cause plaintiff? Yes '3. Did cars? '4. coupled, sustained 'No.' '5. train? '6. become ill walking No' Griswold Gardner, 334, 337.

Category: 7