Legal Document

361 U.S. 354 80 Supreme Court Reporter 387 4 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 366 Clifford M. DAVIS, Petitioner,v.VIRGINIAN RAILWAY COMPANY. Number 53. Argued Dec. 10, 1959. Decided Jan. 25, 1960. Mr. Henry E. Howell, Jr., Norfolk, Va., for petitioner. Thomas R. McNamara, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is a negligence case under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Statutes-at-Large 65, 45 Code KF62 § 51, Annotated KF65 U5 51. Petitioner, an employee respondent, was injured while shifting various railroad cars on its tracks in and about Ford Motor Company plant at Virginia. His first cause action charged respondent with requiring such accelerated time inexperienced help that petitioner attempting to carry out his instructions. In second claim alleged physician furnished by subsequent injury administered him improper treatment, thus aggravating injury, responsible negligence. At close case, trial judge sustained motion strike petitioner's evidence discharged jury. On petition writ error claiming issues should have been presented jury, Virginia Appeals rejected and, effect, affirmed judgment, without written opinion. Believing question posed importance uniform administration this federal statute, we granted certiorari. 359 964, 79 883, 3 833. We conclude issue as submitted but insufficient support malpractice claim. 2 Petitioner yard conductor July 3, 1957, he instructed 'shift' or 'spot' railway loading platform spur track Norfolk. There were 43 involved. Some empty standing plant. These had be moved make way loaded which outside respondent's yards. The job called them lined up then particular positions spots where employees might remove their contents. morning accident there designated some 22 switched. Two brakemen assigned assist operation. complete spotting during lunch period plant, 30 minutes. shows neither experienced senior brakeman never spotted before, nor worked brakeman. other only short period. Railroad classed 'switching operation' 'a hot job' because 'you do your little faster than you would yard.' who there, minimum completion operation involving many 50 minutes, maximum well over hour. Since perform task it necessary work normally would. addition, informed inexperience, required take position top boxcars order ready brakemen. Normally, taken ground conductor, he, usually carried duties. When one assistance operation, ran along toward give help, but, upon coming gondola car, obliged descend ladder boxcar next it. slipped fell ground, suffering complained here. record indicates rather inexperience brakemen—a function not ordinarily performed conductor. think left jury decide whether direction within minutes,1 plus 'hot job,' precipitated injury. 'The debatable quality issue, fact fair-minded men reach different conclusions, emphasize appropriateness leaving tribunal our legal system type (Tiller versus Atlantic Coast Line Co., 318 54, 63 444, 87 L.Ed. 610) controverted evidence. Jones East Tennessee, V. & G.R. 128 443, 445, 9 118, 32 478; Washington Georgetown company McDade, 135 554, 572, 10 1044, 1049, 34 235. To withdraw from usurp functions.' Bailey Central Vermont 1943, 319 350, 353—354, 1062, 1064, 1444.2 As claim, court held liable any part Dr. Leigh, need pass however, since find no sufficient recovery. Proof malpractice, requires two evidentiary steps: recognized standard medical community kind showing negligently departed treatment plaintiff. acknowledged these tests allowed counsel offer proof, although ruling Leigh's actions. unquestioned qualification ad treated accordance best judgment long practice. evaluation concerning Thiemeyer, another petitioner, testified did 'think (the treatment) proper.' Thiemeyer's fracture immobilized until healed sufficiently bear weight jeopardy healing,' 'would say activity aggravate period.' proof fatally deficient. No foundation laid fracture. having established, follows sufficient. judge, therefore, correct declining submit 5 view holding action, reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent 6 It so ordered. 7 Reversed remanded. 8 For reasons set forth Rogers Missouri Pacific 352 500, 524, 77 459, 493, FRANKFURTER certiorari improvidently granted. N Immigration Nationality Decisions read briefs, theory happened forced cars, instead worked, consequence (1) company's instructions car-shifting unusually order, (2) failure supply helpers. Under 'rule reason,' suppose could said both scores, light unequivocal testimony quoted my Brother WHITTAKER'S opinion, matters referred Court's Even so, makes unless factors contributed increase normal hazards employment. barren anything why occurred. whatever either car faulty. admitted being worker whose duties times down ladders tops cars. fall stopped moving, nearly so. asked explain how fall, all 'it grease shoe'; pure conjecture, shows. More especially, 'rushed.' 11 circumstances, hold found what enhance employment is, effect substitute atmosphere speculation reason. 12 basis criteria governing jurisdiction, has profitable business 13 affirm. 14 WHITTAKER, concurring dissenting part. 15 agree contention treating physician, But, deference, must disagree caused directly am unable 'direction' 'to minutes.'* And 'senior brakeman,' whom finds 'inexperienced', shown own undisputed pursued occupation more year. 'junior brakeman' 'about year.' Moreover, act commission omission—of those slip very slowly moving boxcar, Nor evidence, even defect ladder. Where, then, causation thought jury? pressed us assignment failed provide safe place work, smooth level right adjoining that, if trainman land less likely suffer easy understand mention see judges state courts unanimously saw it, claims does are equally substance. 16 Citing 353, 354, 1444, quotes: 'To If quotation means involved 'such question' here, respectfully disagree. facts pages 351—352, page 1063. record, compelled submissible causation, affirm judgment. 17 HARLAN, dissenting. 18 From point functions Court, decision provides example futility continuing bring here review cases kind. So verdicts remain subject degree judicial supervision, cf. Harris Pennsylvania 15, 27—28, 22, 29—30, (dissenting opinion), warrant removing consideration will doubtless continue divide conscientious except clearest instances. below now reversed,* majority disagrees unanimous courts. My dissent, takes majority. I, also still approach. While undisputed, conflict, course See Tennant Peoria P.U.R. 1944, 321 29, 35, 64 409, 412, 88 520; Lavender Kurn, 1946, 327 645, 653, 66 740, 744, 90 916; 493. * Bearing matter switching direct examination follows: 'Q. What General Yardmaster Virginian Railway you? line they lunch. Did ascertain lastd plant? Yes, sir. How last? minutes.' cross-examination testified: He yardmaster) tell meet schedule meant abandon safety precautions, he? No, always job, doing, observe precautions yourself men, not? certain thing time, just go slower, don't You man time? charge? fast slow out, me up.' issue.

Classification Label: 7