U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1915

Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co. v. Fortner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided December 14, 1915 · Denison, Knappen, McCall

228 F. 191; 142 C.C.A. 547; 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2007

Counsel

W. B. Miller, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff in error., James B. Cox, of Johnson City, Tenn., for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Hall (6th Cir. 1917)
Meers v. Childers (6th Cir. 1916)

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 of the Court

DENISON, Circuit Judge.

[1, 2] Error to reverse judgment for plaintiff for a personal injury. The only substantial question is whether there was any case for the jury. The company’s apparatus and rule, if used and followed, provided an efficient safeguard against such an accident as did happen; but a fellow servant or plaintiff, or both, disregarded this rule. Additional apparatus, easily installed, or additional rules, would have supplied a further safeguard and would have prevented such an accident, unless the operator’s carelessness had also increased to an improbable point. Lacking exception thereto, it must-be presumed that the charge correctly defined the duty of the com*192pany to provide reasonably safe, but not the safest, apparatus and rules of operation,- and made clear how far, if at all, plaintiff might be exonerated from contributory negligence and from having assumed that risk which came from the lack of the safer methods.

We cannot say that there was nothing, substantial for the jury, on these issues.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.