Legal Document

339 U.S. 96 70 Supreme Court Reporter 509 94 L.Ed. 683 AFFOLDERv.NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. Number 200. Argued Nov. 18, 1949. Decided March 13, 1950. Mr. William or Haw. Hawai‘i Reports KFH45 A2 Allen, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Mr Lon Hocker, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We have review a judgment Appeals Eighth Circuit, reversing petitioner's recovery an $80,000 against respondent railroad based on alleged violation Federal Safety Appliance Act1 and Employers' Liability Act.2 Petitioner was member crew engaged in classifying, sorting, number cars respondent's yards. Twenty-four had been coupled together one track. The twenty-fifth, Rock Island car, kicked eastward down track to couple with others. It did so, its east end joining other cars. A Pennsylvania car next track, but it failed together. After three four added, twenty-four others which attached began rolling ran after moving train attempt board stop them, as his duty. His leg lost he fell under this attempt. 2 trial jury, petitioner contending that failure join impact itself Act, resulting separation injury. Respondent took position criterion Act is, 'were they (the cars) equipped efficient couplers?' not 'did couplers) fact fail couple?'; if there proximate cause jury returned verdict $95,000 which, upon remittitur, reduced $80,000. amount entered 1948, 79 F.Supp. 365. On appeal reversed. 8 Cir., 1949, 174 Reporter, 2nd Series 486. granted certiorari. 338 813, 73. 3 determined issue favorable petitioner, admits 'problem causal connection vel non Affolder case is legally identical same problem Carter case. (Carter versus Atlanta Saint Andrews Bay R. Co., 430, 226.)' agree consequently hold correctly below. 4 Nor do we think any question regarding normal efficiency couplers involved action Acts. As said O'Donnell Elgin, Joliet Eastern 384, 200, case, supra, duty Acts negligence carrier absolute requiring performance 'on occasion question.' (174 489.) 5 disposition reasoning charge3 given contained 'no explanation legal effect' direct proof 'and permissible use could make * *.' erroneously concluded find plaintiff only inferred 'bad condition consequent defendant's statutory This error Seventh Circuit made O'Donnell, relied by present cause. In subsequently Appeals, held show 'bad' coupler; she entitled peremptory instruction equip coupler perform properly 'in switching operation rendered defendant liable injuries proximately therefrom, neither evidence nor diligence care be considered liability.' Further, said, 'a equipment required actionable wrong (338 204.) 6 Of course assumes placed operate impact. Thus, 'the these two because opened', good defense. also found fault charge ground deprived cannot agree. court directed at least times them determine reason why separated specifically called their attention testimony head switchman, thus emphasizing possibility failure, any, open separation. Likewise, argument counsel, both defendant, clearly reveals sole regard whether, were proper position, automatically impact.4 verdict, resolved 7 charge, taken whole sufficiently informed relevant rules. damages awarded District Court's monstrous circumstances Barry Edmunds, 1886, 116 550, 501, 29 729. Accordingly, reversed affirmed. 9 Reversed. 10 FRANKFURTER would dismiss writ improvidently granted, reasons set forth him 437, 226, 230. 11 REED dissents. He affirm clear due setting coupler. See New York, company Affolder, 486, 491, Judge E.R. 394, note 7, 206. 12 DOUGLAS no part consideration decision 13 JACKSON, dissenting. 14 surviving whether gave correct knowledge law applied. 15 thought 'very probably impression' need establish Act. This, recognizes, law. Before establishes defective coupler, must so couple. If adjusted such automatic be, device. 16 instructions language quoted suggest rule. Other used, however, might well cancel effect quoted. Collet, 'We are unable escape conclusion definite respect.' 491. 17 seemed foggy generally familiar what judge driving at, N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions see how can confident mislead laymen. That confidence all reverse judgment. know more about than Appeals; happened composed judges, whom experience presiding over trials Court, gives better mind subject have. should inclined leaves much confusion just to. most happen now being resubmit carefully instructed. 18 event, kind meets qualifications ourselves laid grant Rule 38(5), 28 United States Code Annotated KF65 U5 No settled unless devise some measure incoherence lower courts will too much. Short that, substitute our own impression probable psychological individual All written favor dismissing 230, Wilkerson McCarthy, 336 53, 65—77, 69 413, 419—424, seems especially applicable here. granted. 'It shall unlawful common interstate commerce haul permit hauled used line traffic coupling impact, uncoupled without necessity men going between ends cars.' 27 Statutes-at-Large 531, 45 KF62 § 2, 2. 35 65, amended, §§ 51—60, 51—60. court's out length 488—491. Defendant introduced small model expert demonstrated workings jury. Counsel argued jury: 'He (plaintiff's counsel) says necessary coupling. say wrong. couple, then liability case.' Defendant's using model, explained position: 'This lock up knuckle back, closed, tell me, ladies gentlemen, opened closed following accident? Well, obviously, locked accident, Millikan testified (an hour accident) pin seated, *. Now, answer possible when car.' Plaintiff's counsel countered: 'I don't say, never told you, will, merely cars, recover. simply those devices put operate, duty, regardless operated before since, prove—and you emphatically defect.' opened, plaintiff's counsel: 'Now, let me ask Tielker switchman) it? went knuckle, difficulty opening it—he push times, first time, showing something stuck. bad-order card—remember front 727512. bent operating lever rod, bracket, they? They themselves. card, record. 'What does card my hand? What do? confirms Tielker, doesn't it?'

Classification Label: 7