Court Opinion

ID: 9449666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:18:30.648594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:55.863300
License: Public Domain

KILEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The most favorable evidence for plaintiff was that while putting the chain in his superior’s automobile he “slipped” and in falling bumped his knee. There was evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that the automobile was backed up to the incline (or “embankment”) from the railroad tracks and down which plaintiff carried the twenty-five pound chain; and that while standing on the incline and putting the-*715chain in the car he slipped because of the snow and oil on his shoes, fell and was injured. His superior knew of the weight of the chain, the snowy slope, the oily bed through which plaintiff would cross following him, and with this knowledge backed his car up to the slope. With all of this knowledge, reasonable minds could differ on whether defendant, through plaintiff’s superior, had furnished a safe place for plaintiff’s work of putting the chain in the automobile.
The colloquy between court and counsel prior to the direction of verdict discloses differences of opinions about what the evidence showed and opposite inferences drawn from those different views.
I think under the Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act there was sufficient favorable evidence, with favorable inferences, to take this case to the jury.