TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Alma Schulz, Administratrix of the Estate of August M. Schulz v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Alma SCHULZ, Administratrix of the Estate of August M. Schulz, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Schulz v. The Pa. R.R. Co., 222 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

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

Subsequent history: rev'd, Schulz v. Pa. R.R., 350 U.S. 523 (1956). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 3, 1955
Docket
No. 23444_1
Judges
Clark, Frank, Hincks
Citations
222 F.2d 5401955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4809

Opinion — Clark

CLARK, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff sued for damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 , because of the accidental death of her husband while he was employed by defendant as a tug fireman. His job entailed watching four tugboats docked for the night of December 25, 1949, at Pier H, Jersey City, N. J. He was last seen alive early that evening, and his body was recovered from the waters near the adjacent Pier F on January 31, 1950. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment upon a directed verdict granted by Judge Edelstein upon a motion by the defendant.

Plaintiff claimed that defendant had negligently failed to provide the decedent with a safe place to work. She alleged that the lighting of the pier was inadequate, that the barges were icy, and that the pier work force was undermanned. The evidence of such alleged negligence was slight, and perhaps at most only doubtfully sufficient to present a jury question as to defendant’s breach of duty. But beyond this, there was no showing whatsoever that the alleged conditions were causally related to the accident. Plaintiff never contended that the ice completely covered the barges or that the pier or the barges were entirely shrouded in darkness. We have no way of knowing how or where the accident occurred, and cannot say that it was proximately caused by any default on the part of the defendant. Hence the defendant was clearly entitled to a directed verdict in its favor. Johnson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2 Cir., 220 F.2d 279 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1956: 31957: 11960: 11961: 119562026peak 1956 · 3

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Johnson v. N.Y., New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 220 F.2d 279 (2d Cir. 1955) 0

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