TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Eckenrode, Administratrix, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Eckenrode v. Pa. R.R., 335 U.S. 329 (1948)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 15, 1948
Docket
No. 28
Judges
Black, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge
Citations
335 U.S. 32969 S. Ct. 9193 L. Ed. 2d 4193 L. Ed. 411948 U.S. LEXIS 1567

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

This was a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in which the petitioner claimed damages under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act 1

and the Boiler Inspection Act 2

for the death of her husband while in the respondent’s employ as a brakeman.

*330 In response to specific interrogatories, the jury absolved the respondent of liability under the Boiler Inspection Act, but found that there had been such negligence as to create liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. It returned a verdict for petitioner. Judgment was entered upon the verdict.

The respondent moved the Court to set aside the verdict and the judgment entered thereon in accordance with its motion for directed verdict under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment was vacated; the verdict set aside, and judgment entered in favor of the respondent. The District Court was of the opinion that there was no evidence upon which a finding of negligence could be predicated, and that, in any event, there was no evidence of a causal relation between the claimed negligence and the accident. 71 F. Supp. 764 .

Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the judgment was affirmed. A rehearing was granted, and there was an affirmance with one judge dissenting. 164 F. 2d 996 .

There is a single question presented to us: Was there any evidence in the record upon which the jury could have found negligence on the part of the respondent which contributed, in whole or in part, 3

to Eckenrode’s death? Upon consideration of the record, the Court is of the opinion that there is no evidence, nor any inference which reasonably may be drawn from the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the petitioner, which can sustain a recovery for her.

Accordingly, the judgment is Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge dissent.

1

35 Stat. 65 , 53 Stat. 1404 , 45 U. S. C. § 51 .

2

36 Stat. 913 , as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 23 .

3

45 U. S. C. § 51 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 53 cases

View all citing references →
1948: 21949: 91950: 61951: 21952: 31953: 21954: 31955: 41956: 61957: 61958: 11959: 21964: 11968: 11973: 11977: 11986: 11992: 12004: 119482026peak 1949 · 9

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pearl Thomas, Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis Samuel Thomas, Deceased v. Conemaugh & Black Lick Railroad Company234 F.2d 429 (3d Cir. 1956)
  2. Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club431 F. Supp. 254 (E.D. Pa. 1977)
  3. Dworkis v. Dworkis111 So. 2d 70 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)
  4. Rose Wong and Kent Wong v. Walter Swier and Laura Swier267 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1959)
  5. Joseph Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique245 F.2d 175 (2d Cir. 1957)
  6. State v. Taylor422 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. 1968)

Most recent

  1. Bumbaca v. Township of Edison861 A.2d 156 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)
  2. Glover v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co.841 S.W.2d 211 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)
  3. Charles v. West Indies Transport631 F. Supp. 1023 (D.P.R. 1986)
  4. Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club431 F. Supp. 254 (E.D. Pa. 1977)
  5. Merriman v. Johnson496 S.W.2d 326 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973)
  6. State v. Taylor422 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Eckenrode v. Pa. R. Co., 164 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1947) 38
Eckenrode v. Pa. R., 71 F. Supp. 764 (E.D. Pa. 1947) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list