Supreme Court of the United States, 1948

Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 15, 1948 · Black, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge

335 U.S. 329; 69 S. Ct. 91; 93 L. Ed. 2d 41; 1948 U.S. LEXIS 1567; 93 L. Ed. 41 (United States Reports)

Counsel

B. Nathaniel Richter, by special leave of Court, pro hac vice, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was John H. Hoffman., Owen B. Rhoads argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Philip Price and H. Francis DeLone.

Cases that cite this one

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

Joseph Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique (2d Cir. 1957)
In re Frankel (N.J. 1956)
Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. (5th Cir. 1952)
Nance v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad (Mo. 1950)
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coleman (5th Cir. 1950)
Bumbaca v. Township of Edison (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)
Glover v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)
Charles v. West Indies Transport (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1986)
Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1977)
Merriman v. Johnson (Mo. Ct. App. 1973)
State v. Taylor (Mo. 1968)
Rose Wong and Kent Wong v. Walter Swier and Laura Swier (9th Cir. 1959)
Dworkis v. Dworkis (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)
Zegan v. Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1958)
Josephine E. Baird, as Administratrix of the Estate of Pearl A. Baird, Deceased v. New York Central Railroad Co. (2d Cir. 1957)
The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company v. Joseph Dox (1st Cir. 1957)
O'NEILL v. United States (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1957)
John W. Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (7th Cir. 1956)
Pearl Thomas, Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis Samuel Thomas, Deceased v. Conemaugh & Black Lick Railroad Company (3d Cir. 1956)
Reiner v. Blumenthal (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 1956)
John W. Martin, as Trustee of the Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Tom Riley (5th Cir. 1955)
Herron v. Pacific Electric Railway Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
Kowtko v. Delaware and Hudson Railroad Corp. (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1955)
Schwartz v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (Mo. 1955)
Wadiak v. Illinois Cent. R. Co (7th Cir. 1953)

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

Per Curiam.

This was a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in which the petitioner claimed damages under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act 1 and the Boiler Inspection Act 2 for the death of her husband while in the respondent’s employ as a brakeman.

*330 In response to specific interrogatories, the jury absolved the respondent of liability under the Boiler Inspection Act, but found that there had been such negligence as to create liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. It returned a verdict for petitioner. Judgment was entered upon the verdict.

The respondent moved the Court to set aside the verdict and the judgment entered thereon in accordance with its motion for directed verdict under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment was vacated; the verdict set aside, and judgment entered in favor of the respondent. The District Court was of the opinion that there was no evidence upon which a finding of negligence could be predicated, and that, in any event, there was no evidence of a causal relation between the claimed negligence and the accident. 71 F. Supp. 764.

Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the judgment was affirmed. A rehearing was granted, and there was an affirmance with one judge dissenting. 164 F. 2d 996.

There is a single question presented to us: Was there any evidence in the record upon which the jury could have found negligence on the part of the respondent which contributed, in whole or in part, 3 to Eckenrode’s death? Upon consideration of the record, the Court is of the opinion that there is no evidence, nor any inference which reasonably may be drawn from the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the petitioner, which can sustain a recovery for her.

Accordingly, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr. Justice Rutledge dissent.

35 Stat. 65, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51.

36 Stat. 913, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 23.

45 U. S. C. § 51.

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