Frank J. Hunter v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, a Corporation, and St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, a Corporation
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision. The 4 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Union Pacific Railroad v. Allied Chemical Corp. (Colo. App. 1988)
- Cavender v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1984)
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 1978)
- Torres v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (9th Cir. 1978)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This appeal was taken from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma adverse to appellant on a claim for damages for personal injuries suffered and caused by the alleged negligence of the appellee railroads. Recovery was denied by the court, sitting without a jury, on a factual finding that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence and the legal conclusion that appellant, a non-employee of the railroads, was not within the compulsion of the Federal Safety Appliance Act of 1910, 45 U.S.C. § 11. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s factual determination and the correctness of the court’s ruling on the application of the Safety Appliance Act to appellant are both questioned on appeal. The trial court’s memorandum opinion, D.C., 276 F.Supp. 936, fully sets forth the evidentiary background of the case and the relationship between the parties.
Since the trial of this case the Supreme Court has authoritatively upheld the trial court’s ruling that the Safety Appliance Act does not immunize a non-employee from the defense of contributory negligence where, as here, a railroad has violated a safety provision of the Act. Crane v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry., 395 U.S. 164, 89 S.Ct. 1706, 23 L.Ed.2d 176. And from our review of the record we cannot say that the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that appellant’s own conduct negligently contributed to causing his injury. The judgment is accordingly
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.