Southern Railway Co. v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80 (1914)

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 233 U.S. 75, click here.

Southern Railway Company v. Bennett


No. 796


Argued March 2, 1914
Decided April 6, 1914
233 U.S. 80

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Syllabus

Quaere whether ordinary questions of negligence are open in this Court in a case coming from the state court based on the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.

An isolated phrase in the charge in a case involving the fall of an engine, which did not amount to res ipsa loquitur, but was to the effect that proof of a defect in the appliances that the master was bound to use care to keep in order and which usually would be in order if due care was taken was prima facie evidence of neglect held, in this case, not to be reversible error, no attention having been called to the expression at the time.

Whether upon the evidence the verdict is excessive is a matter for the trial court, and not to be reexamined on writ of error. Herencia v. Guzman, 219 U.S. 44.

Even though the verdict may seem large to this Court, it cannot reverse on that ground in the absence of error which warrant imputing to judge and jury a connivance in escaping the limits of the law.

79 So. 710 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the construction of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the validity of a verdict and judgment thereunder, are stated in the opinion.