Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Mullins

Yazoo & Miss. Valley R.R. v. Mullins, 249 U.S. 531 (1919)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1919-04-21
Topic
general

Mr.‘Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the court. Mullins, a flagman on the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad, was injured while engaged in switching an interstate train. He died within a few hours; and his administratrix brought suit in .n state court of Mississippi *532 under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. At the trial the Railroad requested a directed verdict on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on its part. This request was refused; the case was submitted.to the jury under instructions, some of which were objected to; and the verdict was for the plaintiff.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Mullins. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
37 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Supremacy Clause A state law that relieves a plaintiff of the burden of proving negligence cannot constitutionally be applied to a case brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. 249 U.S. at 532
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Review of State Court Judgments — Harmless Error For the purpose of determining whether an error committed below was prejudicial, the Supreme Court will examine the whole record, whether the case comes from a state court or a federal court, leaving questions of state law to the decision of the state courts in cases coming from those courts. 249 U.S. at 533
  3. General — Employers' Liability — Duty to Furnish Safe Place to Work A railroad company is not under an absolute duty to furnish an employee a safe place for the performance of his duties, even where the employee is engaged in switching an interstate train; the company is bound only to use reasonable care. 249 U.S. at 533
YAZOO M.V.R.R. CO.v. MULLINS,249 U.S. 531(1919)
39 S.Ct. 368
YAZOO MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.v. MULLINS,
ADMINISTRATRIX OF MULLINS.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.
No. 273.
Argued March 21, 1919.
Decided April 21, 1919.
A state law relieving the plaintiff of the burden of proving negligence is constitutionally inapplicable to a case under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. P. 532.New OrleansNortheastern R.R. Co. v.Harris,247 U.S. 367. For the purpose of determining whether error was prejudicial, this court will examine the whole record, leaving state questions to the decision of state courts in cases coming from them. P. 533. A flagman was injured while engaged in switching an interstate train.Held, that the railroad company was not under an absolute duty to furnish him a safe place for the performance of his duties, but was merely bound to use reasonable care.Id.115 Miss. 343, reversed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Charles N. Burch, with whomMr. H.D. Minorwas on the briefs, for plaintiffs in error.Mr. Marion W. Reily, with whomMr. Thomas G. Fewellwas on the brief, for defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the court.
Mullins, a flagman on the Yazoo Mississippi Valley Railroad, was injured while engaged in switching an interstate train. He died within a few hours; and his administratrix brought suit in a state court of MississippiPage 532under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. At the trial the Railroad requested a directed verdict on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on its part. This request was refused; the case was submitted to the jury under instructions, some of which were objected to; and the verdict was for the plaintiff. Upon appeal from the judgment entered thereon the Supreme Court of Mississippi refused to consider the question of sufficiency of the evidence of negligence; and affirmed the judgment on the ground that the so-called "Prima Facie Act" of Mississippi (§ 1985 of the Code of 1906, as amended by c. 215, Laws 1912, p. 290), as to which the trial court had given no instruction, applied and relieved the plaintiff of the burden of establishing negligence.115 Miss. 343. The case comes here by writ of error under § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448,39 Stat. 726.

Since the decision below, this court has decided that the Mississippi "Prima Facie Act" cannot be applied to suits under the Federal Employers' Liability Act,New Orleans NortheasternR.R. Co. v.Harris,247 U.S. 367; and the Supreme Court of Mississippi now recognized this rule.New Orleans NortheasternR.R. Co. v.Hanna, 78 So. 953. The administratrix contends that, as the trial court did not give any instruction concerning the "Prima Facie Act," the error of the Supreme Court in resting its decision on that statute should not prevent an affirmance of the judgment below, because the Railroad was not prejudiced by the error.

It is true generally in cases coming from lower federal courts that the rendering of an erroneous decision on a particular question,Fidelity Deposit Co. v.Courtney,186 U.S. 342,351;Westv.Camden,135 U.S. 507,521; or the assignment by the lower court of an erroneous reason for a right decision;Seaboard Air Line Ry. v.Moore,228 U.S. 433,435;UnitedStatesv.One Distillery,Page 533174 U.S. 149,151; will not entitle the complaining party to reversal, if it is clear that his rights were not prejudiced thereby. And this is likewise true of cases coming from state courts.Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Ry. Co. v.Wright,239 U.S. 548,551;New York, Philadelphia Norfolk R.R. Co. v.Peninsula Exchange,240 U.S. 34,41-42. SeeMurdockv.Cityof Memphis, 20 Wall. 590. Whether the case comes from a state court or a federal court, this court will, for the purpose of determining whether the error found may have been prejudicial, examine the whole record; state questions being left to the decision of the state court in cases coming here from those courts.

But we cannot say here that the rights of the Railroad were not prejudiced by the error of the Supreme Court of Mississippi. It may be, as contended by the administratrix, that there was sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury, and that the general instructions concerning negligence were proper. But the trial court also instructed the jury that "It was the absolute duty of the defendant to furnish the deceased with a safe place to perform the duties incident to his employment." It is clear that, under the circumstances of this case, the duty was not an absolute one; there was merely a duty to use reasonable care.Chicago Northwestern Ry. Co. v.Bower,241 U.S. 470;Seaboard Air Line Ry. v.Horton,233 U.S. 492;Choctaw,Oklahoma Gulf R.R. Co. v.Tennessee,191 U.S. 326,331. As examination of this record does not convince us that the admitted error was harmless, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi is reversed. The questions presented being properly here on writ of error, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.Reversed.Page 534