ECKENRODE, ADMINISTRATRIX, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO.
No. 28.
Argued October 22,1948.
Decided November 15, 1948.
B. Nathaniel Richter, by special leave of Court, pro hac vice, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was John H. Hoffman.
Owen B. Rhoads argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Philip Price and H. Francis DeLone.
Per Curiam.
This was a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in which the petitioner claimed damages under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the Boiler Inspection Act for the death of her husband while in the respondent’s employ as a brakeman.
In response to specific interrogatories, the jury absolved the respondent of liability under the Boiler Inspection Act, but found that there had been such negligence as to create liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. It returned a verdict for petitioner. Judgment was entered upon the verdict.
The respondent moved the Court to set aside the verdict and the judgment entered thereon in accordance with its motion for directed verdict under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment was vacated; the verdict set aside, and judgment entered in favor of the respondent. The District Court was of the opinion that there was no evidence upon which a finding of negligence could be predicated, and that, in any event, there was no evidence of a causal relation between the claimed negligence and the accident. 71 F. Supp. 764.
Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the judgment was affirmed. A rehearing was granted, and there was an affirmance with one judge dissenting. 164 F. 2d 996.
There is a single question presented to us: Was there any evidence in the record upon which the jury could have found negligence on the part of the respondent which contributed, in whole or in part, to Eckenrode’s death? Upon consideration of the record, the Court is of the opinion that there is no evidence, nor any inference which reasonably may be drawn from the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the petitioner, which can sustain a recovery for her.
Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge dissent.
35 Stat. 65, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51.
36 Stat. 913, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 23.
45 U. S. C. § 51.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.