Document: 353 U.S. 360 77 S.Ct. 840 1 L.Ed.2d 889 H. T. ARNOLD, Petitioner,v.PANHANDLE AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. No. 240. Argued April 24, 25, 1957. Decided May 13, Rehearing Denied June 17, See 354 927, 1375. Mr. James O. Bean, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner. Charles L. Cobb, Lubbock, respondent. PER CURIAM. We hold that the proofs justified with reason jury's conclusion employer negligence played a part in producing petitioner's injury. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 500, 443, 459, 493; Webb Illinois Central 512, 451, 503; Ferguson Moore-McCormack Lines, 521, 457, 511; Shaw Atlantic Coast Line 920, 680, 718; Futrelle 682, Deen Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe 925, 715, 721; Thomson Texas 926, 698, 722. The general verdict, respondent negligently contributed to injury, has support testimony of witnesses justifying inference passageway as used was not safe place petitioner work while performing his assigned duties. special issues claimed be conflict this finding concerned alleged only operation and presence truck on passageway. But even if rule announced by Court Civil Appeals controlled, we see it these answers present no square conflict. findings do exhaust all possible grounds which prior unsafe-place-to-work jury may have been based. Hence case might well true insofar record indicates. having asserted federal rights governed law, is our duty under Act make certain they are fully protected, Congress intended them be. therefore cannot accept interpretations nullify their effectiveness, '* * assertion Federal rights, when plainly reasonably made, defeated name local practice.' Davis Wechsler, 263 22, 44 14, 68 L.Ed. 143. Dice Akron, Canton Y.R. 342 359, 72 312, 96 398; Brown Western 338 294, 70 105, 94 100. judgment reversed remanded. 2 Reversed 3 Justice FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 4 I would dismiss writ improvidently granted reasons set forth my dissent 524, 493. Insofar review decision court involves question an inconsistency between verdict central issue negligence, inappropriateness granting certiorari re-examine glaringly emphasized. 5 HARLAN, whom BURTON WHITTAKER join, 6 As presents different situation from involved other cases which, increasing numbers regret say, passed during current Term,1 am constrained write few words explanation dissent, beyond views expressed dissenting opinion Pac. 559, 478, 479, 7 This more than problem sufficiency evidence verdict. Under procedure, trial required bring whether had failed furnish work, and, so, such failure contributing cause accident. also asked put court. favorable petitioner, but its were favor respondent, them, wholly inconsistent verdict.2 In circumstances state appellate court, applying held must yield issues, should entered 8 unable any valid basis Court's action upsetting judgment. Clearly, seems me, procedural applied resolving head-on collision did subvert established Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. Compare Nor, opinion, can said inconsistencies, accordance practice, deprived substantive right given him statute. 398. Indeed, identical applicable, same circumstances, tried Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 49(b), 28 9 affirm. Herdman Pennsylvania 518, 455, 508; Inc., Gibson Phillips Petroleum 874, 16, 77; Johnson Union 957, 316; C. S.F.R. Petitioner, respondent's car inspector, sued recover injuries sustained he inspecting railroad cars ten feet wide, struck backing into He provide (1) warning truck; (2) protecting working passageway; (3) allowing driven (4) failing negligently. found: there warn onto there; negligent keep proper lookout; driver (5) give before up (6) (7) back too close tracks, fast, without adequate visibility; (8) move path 'when movement could made safety'; (9) lookout truck, accident, though sole cause. understand how every specific allegation complaint rejected jury. And, it, factual based All remains show dangerous spot fact accident occurred there—something until now, never supposed equated negligence.

Category: 7