Plaintiff's intestate, a brakeman, was thrown from a train
carrying interstate commerce and killed as a result of couplers
coming open while the train was in motion.
Held that, in
view of the Safety Appliance Act, negligence might be inferred from
the mere opening of the couplers.
A father who by the state law is entitled to the earnings of his
son during minority may recover damages for the latter's death upon
a cause of action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
130 Minn. 33 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court:
Basing her cause of action upon the Federal Employers' Liability
Act, the defendant in error, as administratrix of the estate of
Merlin E. Gotschall, deceased, sued to recover from the railroad
company, plaintiff in error, damages resulting from his death,
alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the company
while he was in its employ, engaged in interstate commerce. On this
writ of
Page 244 U. S. 67
error, a reversal is sought of the action of the court below in
affirming a judgment entered by the trial court on the verdict of a
jury in favor of the plaintiff.
The evidence tended to show the following facts: Gotschall, a
minor, twenty years old at the time in question was head brakeman
on an extra freight train running from Albert Lea, Minnesota, to
Minneapolis, and transporting interstate commerce merchandise. As
the train left Jordan, an intermediate station, Gotschall boarded a
car toward the rear end and was proceeding along the tops of the
cars toward the locomotive when the train separated because of the
opening of a coupler on one of the cars, resulting in an automatic
setting of the emergency brakes and a sudden jerk, which threw
Gotschall off the train and under the wheels.
The jury, under an instruction of the court, was permitted to
infer negligence on the part of the company from the fact that the
coupler failed to perform its function, there being no other proof
of negligence. It is insisted this was error, since, as there was
no other evidence of negligence on the part of the company, the
instruction of the court was erroneous as, from whatever point of
view looked at, it was but an application of the principle
designated as
res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine the
unsoundness of which, it is said, plainly results from the
decisions in
Patton v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.,
179 U. S. 658, and
Looney v. Metropolitan R. Co., 200 U.
S. 480. We think the contention is without merit,
because, conceding in the fullest measure the correctness of the
ruling announced in the cases relied upon to the effect that
negligence may not be inferred from the mere happening of an
accident except under the most exceptional circumstances, we are of
opinion such principle is here not controlling in view of the
positive duty imposed by the statute upon the railroad to furnish
safe appliances for the coupling of cars.
St.
Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v.
Taylor, 210
Page 244 U. S. 68
U.S. 281,
210 U. S.
294-295;
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v.
United States, 220 U. S. 559,
220 U. S. 575;
Delk v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co., 220 U.
S. 580,
220 U. S. 586;
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S.
33,
241 U. S.
43.
Again, it is insisted that error was committed in submitting the
case to the jury because there was no evidence of pecuniary loss
resulting to Gotschall's father, on whose behalf the suit was
brought. But this disregards the undisputed fact that the deceased
was a minor, and as, under the Minnesota law, the father was
entitled to the earnings of his son during minority, the question
is one not of right to recover, but only of the amount of damages
which it was proper to award.
Affirmed.