opinion: NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. v. HENAGAN.
  No. 38.
  Argued November 8, 1960.
  Decided November 21, 1960.
  Noel W. Deering argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
  James W. Kelleher argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Daniel J. Hanlon.
  Per Curiam.
  The respondent was a waitress in the grill car of one of petitioner’s trains. She brought this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., for damages for injuries allegedly sustained when an emergency application of the brakes brought the train to a sudden stop. A jury which heard the case in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts returned a verdict for respondent. The trial judge denied the petitioner’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, 272 F. 2d 153. We granted certiorari, 362 U. S. 967.
  The train was pulling into petitioner’s station at Providence, Rhode Island, for a scheduled stop. One Montell, apparently to commit suicide, stepped on the track from the station platform as the train approached alongside the platform. The engineer made the emergency application of the brakes in an unsuccessful effort to stop the train before it reached Montell. We have examined the trial record and hold that the proofs were insufficient to submit to the jury the question whether employer negligence played a part in the emergency application of the brakes which allegedly produced the respondent’s injury. See Herdman v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 352 U. S. 518.
  The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with direction to enter judgment for the petitioner notwithstanding the verdict.
  It is so ordered.
  Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent. They believe there was evidence of negligence sufficient for the jury, as summarized by Judge Woodbury, speaking for a unanimous Court of Appeals. 272 F. 2d 153. They also dissent from the direction to enter judgment for the petitioner, since they are of the view that if there is a reversal, there should be a new trial. See Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372, 396 (dissenting opinion).
  For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.
instruction: 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.