St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Brown, 241 U.S. 223 (1916)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 241 U.S. 211, click here.

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Brown

No. 399

Argued April 19, 20, 1916
Decided May 22, 1916
241 U.S. 223

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Syllabus

Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, ante, p. 211, followed to effect that a verdict in an action under the federal Employers’ Liability Act which is not unanimous, but which is legal under the law of the state, is not violative of the Seventh Amendment, and that such Amendment has no application to proceedings in state courts.

The fact that, after the close of the testimony, a plaintiff suing under both the Employers’ Liability Act and the Safety Appliance Act withdrew his claim under the latter act, held in this case not to amount to a withdrawal of the testimony in regard to defective condition of the appliances and entitle defendant to direction of verdict on the ground of assumption of risk, as the testimony was admissible under the issues based on the former act.

The fact that the state appellate court may have inaccurately expressed in one respect its reasons for affirmance does not require this Court to reverse if, in fact no reversible error exists.

The trial court having instructed the jury that, if they found the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence, they should reduce his damages in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to him, failure to define the word "proportion" held, in this case, not error.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and judgment for damages under the Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.