US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

ROBINSON V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 237 U. S. 84 (1915)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 237 U. S. 84 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 237 U.S. 84 (1915)

Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company

No. 167

Argued March 3, 4, 1915

Decided April 5, 1915

237 U.S. 84


In a suit for personal injuries under the Employers' Liability Act, a contract between the plaintiff and a third party may be admissible in evidence on the trial to show that plaintiff was not defendant's employee, even though a demurrer had been sustained to a special plea that the contract contained a release of liability.

A contract between the Pullman Company, as employer, and its employee releasing the employer, and also all railroad corporations over chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 237 U. S. 85

whose lines the employer's cars were operated, from all claims for liability in personal injury sustained by the employ, held in this case valid unless the employee of the Pullman Company was also the employee of the railroad company, in which case that provision of the contract would be invalid under § 5 of the Employers' Liability Act. Congress, in legislating on the subject of carriers by rail, was familiar with the situation, and used the term employee in its natural sense, and did not intend to include as employees of the carrier persons on interstate trains engaged in various services for other masters.

40 App.D.C. 169 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the construction of the Federal Employers' Liability Act and its application to employees of others than the carrier, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 237 U. S. 89

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™