Document: 352 U.S. 518 77 S.Ct. 455 1 L.Ed.2d 508 Virgil HERDMAN, Petitioner,v.PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. No. 46. Argued Dec. 4, 1956. Decided Feb. 25, 1957. Mr. Donald S. McNamara, Columbus, Ohio, for the petitioner. John Eckler, respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion of Court. In this Federal Employers' Liability Act1 case, Court Appeals Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment District Southern which was entered on a directed verdict in favor The agreed with that there complete absence probative facts to support conclusion negligence.2 This granted certiorari determine whether petitioner erroneously deprived jury determination his case.3 2 conductor charge 67-car freight train February 1, 1951, en route from Richmond, Indiana, Ohio. He caboose at end when it came sudden stop about three miles before scheduled Dayton, brought action damages injuries allegedly suffered fall occurred stopped. testified: 'Well, we were coming through slow like speed and I don't know what went wrong, emergency threw me into table tore up floor my flagman top me, finally got straightened up.' immediately left satisfied himself not caused by mechanical failure braking equipment, but rather engineer had applied brakes bring stop. At run, he filed routine conductor's report incident. read record, without objection, during cross-examination. states: 'CN 28, Engine 8800 5680 moving east 67 cars, estimated eight or ten per hour. Automobile drove over crossing just Dayton Rubber Works. To prevent striking automobile engineman air causing rough standing cabin observing gauge made knocked bruising hip.' also stated told him school children automobile. There no evidence any special unusual severity. 3 sole issue raised is question presented under doctrine res ipsa loquitur. We agree lower courts negligence proofs. proofs do meet tests laid down Jesionowski v. Boston & M.R. Co., 329 452, 401, 91 L.Ed. 416. employee's case resulted derailment. held derailments are 'extraordinary, usual, happenings,' so they occur 'a may fairly find as result negligence.'4 4 show unscheduled stops trains extraordinary occurrences. fact, only petitioner's testimony extraordinary. 'We expect them think them.' occurrence thus warrant inference respondent negligent. 5 affirmed. 6 Affirmed. 7 For concurring HARLAN dissenting FRANKFURTER, see 518, 459. 35 Stat. 65, amended, 36 291, 53 1404, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., seq. 228 F.2d 902. 351 906, 76 698, 100 1442. 458, 404.

Category: 7