Court Opinion

ID: 9420444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:54:35.40896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:46:26.382699
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Reed
dissents. He would affirm on the failure of the trial court to make clear to the jury that the carrier was not liable under the Safety Appliance Act if the failure to couple was due to negligence in setting the coupler. See New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Affolder, 174 F. 2d 486, 491, and O’Donnell v. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co., 338 U. S. 384, 394, note 7.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
would dismiss this writ as improvidently granted, for reasons set forth by him in Carter v. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay R. Co., 338 U. S. 430, 437.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.