Supreme Court of the United States, 1916

Atlantic City Railroad v. Parker

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 4, 1916 · Holmes

242 U.S. 56; 37 S. Ct. 69; 61 L. Ed. 150; 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1529 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Thomas 'E. French, with whom Mr. Samuel H. Richards and Mr. Charles Heebner were on the brief, for plaintiff in error:, Mr. David.0. Watkins for defendant in error:

Cases that cite this one

44 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Donnelly v. Pennsylvania Railroad (Ill. App. Ct. 1951)
McGowan v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. (Utah 1952)
State v. Latil (La. 1956)
Hallada v. Great Northern Railway (Minn. 1955)
Charles N. Reed v. Philadelphia, Bethlehem & New England Railroad Company (3d Cir. 1991)
Ft. Worth, & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Smithers (Tex. App. 1920)
George Kavorkian v. Csx Transportation, Inc. (6th Cir. 1997)
George Kavorkian, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Csx Transportation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (6th Cir. 1994)
John Clark v. Kentucky and Indiana Terminal Railroad (6th Cir. 1984)
Florence Metcalfe, Administratrix of the Estate of John E. Metcalfe, Deceased v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, a Corporation (10th Cir. 1974)
McCalley v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)
Finley v. Southern Pacific Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)
Kansas City Southern Railway Company, a Corporation v. James H. Cagle (10th Cir. 1956)
Chicago, St. P., M. and O. Ry. Co. v. Muldowney (8th Cir. 1942)
Brinkley v. Pennsylvania Railroad (Va. 1936)
Geraghty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (2d Cir. 1934)
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & PRR CO. v. Linehan (8th Cir. 1933)
Hampton v. Des Moines & Cent. I. R. Co. (8th Cir. 1933)
Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Auchenbach (3d Cir. 1926)
Jordan v. East St. Louis Connecting Railway Co. (Mo. 1925)
Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Williams (Tex. App. 1925)
Lehigh Valley R. v. Howell (2d Cir. 1925)
Pless v. New York Central Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1919)
Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1957)
Devaney v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (Cal. 1933)

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

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the defendant in error to recover for the loss of an arm crushed while he was coupling a tender to a car.' ThereJs no dispute that the case is governed by the- Acts of Congress — the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, §§ 2, 8; 27 Stat. 531, *59 and the Employers’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c.-149, §§ 3, 4; 35,Stat. 65. The facts material here are few. The engine had backed for the purpose of coupling with the car and had failed to couple automatically by impact. Thereupon the plaintiff, noticing that thedrawhead' was not in line with the one on the'engine, put in his arm for the purpose of straightening (it and thus making the coupling possible, and was caught. An exception was taken to the refusal of a ruling that no negligence was shown on the part of the Railroad Company, but the Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court below. 87 N. J. L, 148.

If there was evidence that the railroad failed to furnish Such “couplers coupling automatically by impact” as the statute requires (Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S. 1, 18, 19), nothing else needs to be considered. We are of opinion that there was enough evidence to go to the jury upon that point. No doubt there are arguments that the' jury should have decided the other way. Some lateral play must be allowed lo drawheads,' and further, the car was on a curvé,which- of course would tend to throw the coupler out of line. - But the jury were warranted in finding that the curve was so slight as not to" affect the case and in regarding the track as for this purpose a straight line. If couplers failed to couple auto-, matically upon a straight track it.at least may be said that a jury would be warranted in finding that a lateral play so great as to prevent coupling was not needed, and that, in the absence of any explanation believed by them, the failure indicated'that the railroad had'not fully complied' with the law. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, 571. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 320, 321. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U. S. 476, 484.

Judgment affirmed.

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