|
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66 (1916)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66 (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 240 U.S. 60, click here.
Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Skaggs No.194 Argued January 19, 20, 1916 Decided January 31, 1916 240 U.S. 66
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Syllabus
Where two employees of the carrier are necessarily working together, as under the exigencies existing in this case, each has a reasonable latitude in relying upon statements of the other made in the course of and as a part of the operation, and if statements made negligently by one result in injury of the other properly relying thereon, the latter is not barred from recovering under the Employers’ Liability Act.
The salutary rule that a party is not entitled to sit silent until after verdict, and then insist that it shall be set aside because the trial court failed to particularly specify in its charge some matter to which its attention had not been suitably called has not been altered by the local statute of Minnesota under which errors in rulings and instructions may be specified on a motion for new trial without taking exceptions on the trial.
This Court concurs in the view expressed by the state appellate court to the effect that an instruction on the question of contributory negligence of the plaintiff did not conform exactly to the proper interpretation of the Employers’ Liability Act, but that, as the mistake was a verbal one which would undoubtedly have been corrected had attention been called thereto at the time, which was not done, and a defendant was not prejudiced thereby, it was not error justifying reversal of the judgment.
125 Minn. 532 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the construction and application of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, and the validity of a verdict and judgment recovered thereunder in a state court, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Illinois Central R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66 (1916) in 240 U.S. 66 240 U.S. 67. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QBS2CMIUZR6XFGX.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Illinois Central R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66 (1916), in 240 U.S. 66, page 240 U.S. 67. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QBS2CMIUZR6XFGX.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Illinois Central R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66 (1916). cited in 1916, 240 U.S. 66, pp.240 U.S. 67. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QBS2CMIUZR6XFGX.
|