Document: 372 U.S. 699 83 S.Ct. 965 10 L.Ed.2d 80 James BASHAM, Petitioner,v.PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. No. 512. Argued March 19, 1963. Decided April 15, Ira Gammerman, New York City, for petitioner. David J. Mountan, Jr., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, a car repairman employed by respondent railroad, brought this suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., in Supreme Court of State to recover damages personal injuries sustained result respondent's alleged negligence. A jury verdict petitioner was set aside trial judge on ground that negligence not established. The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion, one dissenting, A.D.2d 948, 201 N.Y.S.2d 362, and Appeals affirmed, also 11 N.Y.2d 991, 229 428, 183 N.E.2d 704. This granted certiorari, 371 860, 128, 9 98, consider propriety judge's action. 2 At time accident, working hoist platform located work pit underneath railroad which new wheels were being installed. He testified he lifting 100-pound wheel spring into position moved, causing him drop his left index finger which, consequence, amputated. Petitioner's version accident confirmed co-worker who saw move at injury. Petitioner offered additional evidence prior complaints had been lodged with about movements similar adjacent repair pits fellow employees safety equipment preventing installed but where occurred. 3 Respondent introduced it physically impossible have happened manner claimed petitioner, virtually immovable, put there assure when men went nothing do movement during process installing wheels. 4 conflict testimony resolved jury's favor Since an evidentiary basis verdict, error appellate courts reevaluate conflicting mandate opposite from reached jury. 5 In Lavender v. Kurn, 327 645, 66 740, 90 L.Ed. 916, F.E.L.A. action, employer argued, does here, its tended show injured employee. There, case, suing employee injury failure. reversing state court judgment setting employee, said, language fully apposite here: 'Only is complete absence probative facts support conclusion (by jury) reversible appear. But where, free discard or disbelieve whatever are inconsistent conclusion. And court's function exhausted becomes apparent, immaterial might draw contrary inference feel another more reasonable.' U.S., 653, S.Ct., 744. 6 Since, petitioner's evidence, though disputed, constituted sufficient finding negligence, improperly invaded province aside. Rogers Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 500, 77 443, 493. 7 reversed cause remanded further proceedings opinion. It so ordered. 8 Mr. Justice HARLAN (dissenting). run-of-the-mill presenting no question law departure established legal principles. only whether enough take case total 12 Judges—one nisi prius, four (a fifth dissenting), seven Appeals—have held warrant submission To bring such here review nine Justices seems me most futile expenditure judicial time. Having reflected oral argument, briefs, record, I conclude premise reversal can be justified anything says goes. would affirm below.

Category: 7