Court Opinion

ID: 9421916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:00:28.690541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:33.098304
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Whittaker,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that there was no evidence to support petitioner’s contention that respondent is liable to him upon his claim of malpractice by the treating physician. But,' with all deference, I must disagree that there was any evidence of negligence by respondent that caused or directly contributed to cause petitioner’s injury, I am unable to find in the record any evidence of any “direction” by respondent to petitioner “to complete the spotting operation within 30 minutes.” * And the “senior *361brakeman,” whom the Court finds to have been “inexperienced,” is shown by his own undisputed testimony to have pursued that occupation for more than a year. Even the “junior brakeman” is shown by his undisputed testimony to have worked at that occupation for respondent for “about a year.” Moreover, no act — either of commission or omission — of those brakemen is shown to have in any way caused or contributed to cause petitioner to slip on and fall from the ladder of the standing or very slowly moving boxcar, and that is what caused his injury. Nor is there any evidence, or even any claim, of defect in-that ladder. Where, then, is the evidence of respondent’s negligence and of causation that is thought to have presented an issue of fact for the jury? Petitioner has pressed upon us an assignment that respondent failed to provide him with a safe place to work, in that it failed to make smooth and level the right of way adjoining the track, so that, if a trainman were to slip and fall from a car ladder to the ground, he would land on level ground and be less likely to suffer injury.' It is easy to understand why the Court makes no mention of that claim, but, as I see it and *362as the judges of the two state courts unanimously saw it, the claims it does mention are equally without substance.
Citing Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U. S. 350, 353, 354, the Court quotes: “To withdraw such a question from the jury is to usurp its functions.” If by that quotation the Court means that the Bailey case involved “such a question” as we have here, I m.ust respectfully disagree. For the facts of that case see 319 U. S., at 351-352. On this record, I am compelled to think that the trial court and the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals were right in holding that petitioner failed to make a submissible case of negligence and causation,' and I would affirm the judgment.

Bearing on the matter of the time allowed to do this switching work, petitioner testified on direct examination as follows:
“Q. What instructions did the General Yardmaster for the Virginian Railway Company give to you?
“A. My instructions was to line up those cars there for Ford Motor Company while they are at lunch.
“Q. Did you ascertain how long that lunch period lasted' at the Ford plant ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. How long did it last?
“A. 30 minutes.”
On cross-examination petitioner testified:
“Q. He [the yardmaster] did not tell you that you had to meet that schedule even if it meant for you to abandon safety precautions, did he?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. -It is always your job, no matter what you are doing, to observe safety precautions for yourself and for your men, is it not ?
*361“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. . . . And if you reach a point where it is necessary to abandon safety in order to do a certain thing by a certain time, you just have .to go slower, don’t you?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. You were the top man from the Virginian Railway on that job at that time?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. You had charge ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. It was up to you as to how fast or how slow the job was carried out, was it not?
“A. It was up to me to see the Ford plant was set up.”