TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Griggs v. Houston

Griggs v. Houston, 104 U.S. 553 (1882)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 16, 1882
Docket
No. 897
Judges
Waite
Citations
104 U.S. 55326 L. Ed. 8401881 U.S. LEXIS 2044
Headnotes
1. Sections 1166 and 1167 of the Code of Tennessee, touching the liability which ' railroad ■Companies incur • by > failing/' to observe - certain precautions in' running their trains; do not- apply ..to contractors engaged in’ constructing a railroad. 2. The jury may be properly instructed to find for the defendant, where, if the verdict should be against him, the court should set it-aside and grant a'new • -trial.
Summary
Error, tp the. Circuit-Court .of the United States, for the Eastern District of Tennessee. > , ■ . The defendants,,contractors engaged in building a railroad in Tennessee, were sued ..by the widow of Griggs, for herself and his minor - children, for damages caused by his death. He was improperly riding on the pilot or bumper of a locomotive, forming part.of a construction train of the defendants, at the time it. collided with-loaded cars standing on the track. The injuries he then received resulted in his death. Persons on the ears attached to the train were not hurt. . . Her claim to-'recover was based upon sect. 1166 and sect. 116,7 of the - Code. of. Tennessee,, -prescribing- certain- precautions which a railroad company must observe, in running its train. . Théy provide that ¡“when any person, animator ■ other obstruction., appears upon-, the. road, the alarm-whistle shall-be sounded, the breaks-put down,-and every-possible means employed .to stop the train and-prevent an ¡accident; and every railroad company that fails to observe these precautions, or cause ".them to. be observed by its agents or servants, shall be responsible for all-damage to persons or -property occasioned by or resulting from any accident or collision that may occur.’’ The court, charged -the jury that these provisions did not apply to the case, and that she was not entitled to recover. The jury found for the defendants, and she sued out-this writ. Submitted on printed arguments b j-Mr. J. M. Thornburgh for. the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Xenophon Wheeler for the defendants in error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Waite

*554 Me. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

We agree entirely with the court below in the opinion that the statutes in relation to railroads relied upon by the plaintiff in error are not applicable to the facts of this case. If upon the evidence the jury had brought in a verdict against the defendants it would have been the duty of the court to set it aside and grant a new trial. The case comes clearly within Railroad Company v. Jones ( 95 U. S. 489 ), which was followed below. It was right, therefore, to direct a verdict for the defendants. There was no such conflict of evidence as to make it necessary for the jury to pass on the facts.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 45 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 21885–1886: 21891–1892: 51893–1894: 41895–1896: 31897–1898: 21899–1900: 31901–1902: 41903–1904: 11905–1906: 61907–1908: 21909–1910: 11911–1912: 21915–1916: 11921–1922: 31925–1926: 21927–1928: 218832026peak 1905 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bradford Construction Co. v. Heflin42 So. 174 (Miss. 1906)
  2. Allison v. Campbell298 S.W. 523 (Tex. 1928)
  3. International Text-Book Co. v. Heartt136 F. 129 (4th Cir. 1905)
  4. Bramley v. Dilworth274 F. 267 (6th Cir. 1921)
  5. Barley v. Southern Indiana Railway Co.66 N.E. 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 1903)
  6. Russell v. Oregon Short Line R.155 F. 22 (9th Cir. 1907)

Most recent

  1. Texas Vegetable Union v. Obets4 S.W.2d 1058 (Tex. App. 1928)
  2. Allison v. Campbell298 S.W. 523 (Tex. 1928)
  3. Hill v. Stampfli284 S.W. 237 (Tex. App. 1926)
  4. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Groeger266 U.S. 521 (1925)
  5. W. H. Goff Co. v. Lamborn & Co.281 F. 613 (5th Cir. 1922)
  6. Holmes v. Hamilton Ridge Lumber Corp'n.112 S.E. 536 (S.C. 1922) · Dissent

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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