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

ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO R. CO. V. BROWN, 241 U. S. 223 (1916)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 241 U. S. 223 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Brown, 241 U.S. 223 (1916)

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Brown

No. 399

Argued April 19, 20, 1916

Decided May 22, 1916

241 U.S. 223


Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, ante, p. 241 U. S. 211, followed to effect that a verdict in an action under the federal Employers' Liability Act which is not unanimous, but which is legal under the law of the state, is not violative of the Seventh Amendment, and that such Amendment has no application to proceedings in state courts.

The fact that, after the close of the testimony, a plaintiff suing under both the Employers' Liability Act and the Safety Appliance Act withdrew his claim under the latter act, held in this case not to amount to a withdrawal of the testimony in regard to defective condition of the appliances and entitle defendant to direction of verdict on the ground of assumption of risk, as the testimony was admissible under the issues based on the former act.

The fact that the state appellate court may have inaccurately expressed in one respect its reasons for affirmance does not require this Court to reverse if, in fact no reversible error exists.

The trial court having instructed the jury that, if they found the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence, they should reduce his damages chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 241 U. S. 224

in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to him, failure to define the word "proportion" held, in this case, not error.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and judgment for damages under the Employers' Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

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 |™