Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad v. Harris

New Orleans & Ne. R.R. v. Harris, 247 U.S. 367 (1918)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1918-06-03
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • stating that in a FELA case, “the question of burden of proof is a matter of substance and not subject to control by laws of the several states”
  • stating that in a FELA case, “the question of burden of proof is 3 In Felder, the United States Supreme Court held that a state notice statute was preempted by section 1983 when (1) the statute burdened a federal right created by section 1983 and (2
  • presumption in favor of plaintiffs is substantive

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad v. Harris. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
179 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Transportation Law — Burden of Proof — Negligence In an action against a railroad for injuries to an employee resulting from negligence, negligence is an affirmative fact that the plaintiff must establish; under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, rights and obligations depend upon the Act and the applicable principles of common law as interpreted and applied by the federal courts, and negligence is essential to recovery. 247 U.S. 367 (citing Patton v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 179 U.S. 658, 663; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 501–502)
  2. Transportation Law — Supremacy — Burden of Proof The question of the burden of proof in a proceeding under the Federal Employers' Liability Act is a matter of substance and is not subject to control by the laws of the several States; consequently, it is error to apply a state statute making proof that an injury was inflicted by the running of a steam-propelled engine prima facie evidence of the railroad's negligence. 247 U.S. 367 (citing Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 511–512)
  3. Transportation Law — Damages — Conscious Pain and Suffering Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, an employee who dies of his injuries without regaining consciousness endures no conscious suffering and therefore has no right of action for pain and suffering; recovery is limited to the pecuniary loss sustained by the designated beneficiary. 247 U.S. 367 (citing Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 235 U.S. 308, 312; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 241 U.S. 485, 489)
  4. Transportation Law — Beneficiaries — Surviving Widow Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the widow is the sole beneficiary where there is no child, and a parent may be considered only in the absence of both widow and child; where the deceased employee leaves a widow whose marriage has not been dissolved and whose rights and liabilities consequent upon the marriage have not ceased under the local law, proof of a dependent mother's pecuniary loss cannot support a recovery. 247 U.S. 367
NEW ORLEANS N.E.R.R. CO.v. HARRIS,247 U.S. 367(1918)
38 S.Ct. 535
NEW ORLEANS NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.v. HARRIS,
ADMINISTRATRIX OF HARRIS.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.
No. 276.
Argued April 30, 1918.
Decided June 3, 1918.
In actions against a railroad for injuries to employees resulting from its negligence, it has long been the rule of the federal courts that the negligence is to be established affirmatively by the plaintiff. In proceedings brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, rights and obligations depend upon it and applicable principles of common law as interpreted and applied by the federal courts; and negligence is essential to recovery. Hence it is erroneous in such a proceeding to apply a state statute (Mississippi Code, 1906, § 1985, and Laws 1912, c. 215, p. 290),Page 368making proof of injury by an engine propelled by steamprimafacieevidence of a railroad's negligence in an action against it for damages. Under the federal act, there is no cause action for pain and suffering if the employee die of his injuries without regaining consciousness. Under that act, no cause of action accrues for the benefit of a dependent mother where the deceased employee leaves a widow who, although she lived apart from him at the time of his death, was neither remarried nor divorced and where the rights and liabilities consequent upon their marriage had not ceased under the local law. Reversed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. J. Blanc Monroewith whomMr. Monte M. Lemann, Mr.Robert H. ThompsonandMr. L.E. Jeffrieswere on the brief, for plaintiffs in error.Mr. Thomas G. FewellandMr. C.B. Cameron, for defendant in error, submitted.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.
While employed in interstate commerce by plaintiff in error, a common carrier by railroad then engaging in such commerce, Van Harris a brakeman was run over by the tender of an engine moving in the yard at New Orleans, Louisiana — February 5, 1914. He died within a few minutes without regaining consciousness. Having qualified as administratrix, his mother (defendant in error), charging negligence and relying upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act, sued for damages in a state court for Lauderdale County, Mississippi. A judgment in her favor was affirmed by the Supreme Court without opinion.Page 369

The declaration contained no averment of conscious pain or suffering by deceased. It alleged: "That by reason of the negligence hereinabove set out, the defendant railroad company is liable for the killing of said Van Harris and the administratrix is given the right to sue by the Act of Congress, she therefore brings this, her suit, and demands judgment against the defendant for the sum of ten thousand dollars." It further charged that the dead son had been his mother's sole support but contained no reference to his widow.

One witness who claimed to have seen the accident gave evidence tending to show negligence by the railroad; but his presence at the scene was not left free from doubt and other eye witnesses narrated the circumstances differently. Concerning deceased's contributions to his mother's support, she said he was her sole dependence, paid her house rent, gave her something to eat, looked after her, was regularly at work and would bring home thirty or forty dollars a month. Her statements are the only evidence concerning the son's marriage and widow. He duly married Mollie on an undisclosed date; after living together for six months he fell ill and she left; thereafter her whereabouts were unknown to him; she was alive at time of trial (October, 1914); he left no child. Nothing indicates a divorce proceeding. Answering "Do you know whether Mollie ever married anybody else or not?" the witness replied, "I don't know sir; I hear them say she married."

Upon request of the administratrix, the following instructions (among others) were given to the jury:

"No. 1. The court charges the jury for the plaintiff in this case that under the rule of evidence in the State of Mississippi all that is required of the plaintiff in this case is to prove that injury was inflicted by the movement of the defendant's train or engine and then the law presumes negligence and then the burden of proof shifts to thePage 370defendant to prove all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the injury and from those facts so shown exonerate itself from all negligence.

"No. 2. The court charges the jury for the plaintiff that under the rule of evidence under the Mississippi statutes known as theprima faciestatute all that the plaintiff need prove to entitle her to a judgment or verdict is that the defendant's engine or train caused the injury complained of and then the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict at the hands of the jury unless the defendant has shown all of the facts surrounding the injury and from such facts has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that its servants were not guilty of negligence.

"No. 3. The court charges the jury for the plaintiff that if you believe from the evidence that deceased was injured by the running of defendant's engine, then the burden placed on defendant by theprima faciestatute cannot be met or overcome by mere speculation or conjecture, but it devolves on defendant the duty of showing by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the injury and by such proof thus exonerate itself from negligence."

"No. 8. The court charges the jury for the plaintiff in this case that if your verdict shall be for the plaintiff then it should be in such sum as you may believe from the evidence would fully compensate the deceased for his pain and suffering, if any have been shown by the evidence, and the value of his life reckoned according to the American Mortality table had the deceased survived and that such amount or the measure of same is peculiarly within the province of the jury reckoned as above outlined. And that the law does not require the plaintiff to prove the damages in dollars and cents but the amount thereof is to be fixed by the jury in all not to exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars."

The so-called "Prima Facie Act" of Mississippi setPage 371out below1provides, that in actions against railroads for damages proof of injury inflicted by an engine propelled by steam shall beprima facieevidence of negligence. Relying upon and undertaking to apply this statute, the trial court gave the quoted instructions; and in so doing, we think, committed error.

The federal courts have long held that where suit is brought against a railroad for injuries to an employee resulting from its negligence, such negligence is an affirmative fact which plaintiff must establish.The Nitro-Glycerine Case, 15 Wall. 524, 537;Pattonv.Texas Pacific Ry. Co.,179 U.S. 658,663;Looneyv.Metropolitan R.R. Co.,200 U.S. 480,487;Southern Ry. Co. v.Bennett,233 U.S. 80,85. In proceedings brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act rights and obligations depend upon it and applicable principles of common law as interpreted and applied in federal courts; and negligence is essential to recovery.Seaboard Air Line Ry. v.Horton,233 U.S. 492,501,502;Southern Ry. Co. v.Gray,241 U.S. 333,339;New York Central R.R. Co. v.Winfield,244 U.S. 147,150;Erie R.R. Co. v.Winfield,Page 372244 U.S. 170,172. These established principles and our holding inCentral Vermont Ry. Co. v.White,238 U.S. 507,511,512, we think make it clear that the question of burden of proof is a matter of substance and not subject to control by laws of the several States.

It was also error to give quoted instruction number eight. Since the deceased endured no conscious suffering he had no right of action; and possible recovery was limited to pecuniary loss sustained by the designated beneficiary.Garrettv.LouisvilleNashville R.R. Co.,235 U.S. 308,312;Chesapeake Ohio Ry.Co. v.Kelly,241 U.S. 485,489.

The act makes the widow sole beneficiary when there is no child and only in the absence of both may parents be considered. The deceased left a widow and although they had lived apart no claim is made that rights and liabilities consequent upon marriage had disappeared under local law. Of course, we do not go beyond the particular facts here disclosed. In the circumstances, proof of the mother's pecuniary loss could not support a recovery.

The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.Reversed.
  1. Page 371 Mississippi Code 1906, § 1985, as amended by c. 215, Laws 1912, p. 290.

    "1985 (1808).Injury to Persons or Property by RailroadsPrima Facie Evidence of Want of Reasonable Skill and Care, etc. In all actions against railroad corporations and all other corporations, companies, partnerships and individuals using engines, locomotives, or cars of any kind or description whatsoever, propelled by the dangerous agencies of steam, electricity, gas, gasoline or lever power, and running on tracks, for damages done to persons or property, proof of injury inflicted by the running of the engines, locomotives or cars of any such railroad corporations or such other corporation, company, partnership or individual shall beprima facieevidence of the want of reasonable skill and care of such railroad corporation, or such other corporation, company, partnership or individual in reference to such injury. This section shall also apply to passengers and employes of railroad corporations and of such other corporations, companies, partnerships, and individuals." ↩