U.S. Supreme Court, (March 29, 1937)
Docket number: 505
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20018474
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018474
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
U.S. Supreme Court - Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416 (1977)
U.S. Supreme Court - Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977)
U.S. Supreme Court - Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979)
U.S. Supreme Court ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. SCARLETT , 300 U.S. 471 (1937)
300 U.S. 471 ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.v. SCARLETT. * No. 505. Argued March 3, 1937.Decided March 29, 1937. Messrs. H. K. Lockwood and Robert Brennan, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. [ Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Scarlett 300 U.S. 471 (1937) ][Page 300 U.S. 471 , 475] was a contrivance separate and distinct from the ladder, designed and used for a purpose entirely apart from the use of that appliance. The right of recovery, if any, must therefore rest upon the effect of the near proximity of the ladder to the rod, neither being in itself defective. The law to be applied to that situation is the common-law rule of negligence, and not the inflexible rule of the Safety Appliance Act; and the questions to be answered are whether the two appliances were maintained in such relation to one another as to constitute negligence on the part of the company and, if so, whether Scarlett assumed the risk. Ford v. New York, N. H. & H.R. Co., supra; Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Benson, 352 Ill. 195, 199, 185 N.E. 244; Slater v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 146 Minn. 390, 392, 393, 178 N.W. 813. In that view, Scarlett in abandoning his claim under the common-law rule of negligence abandoned the only possible ground of recovery. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Footnotes [Footnote *] Rehearing denied 301 U.S. 712, 81 L.Ed. Ä-. [Footnote *] Section 2, so far as pertinent, provides that '* * * all cars requiring secure ladders and secure running boards shall be equipped with such ladders and running boards, and all cars having ladders shall also be equipped with secure handholds or grab irons on their roofs at the tops of such ladders.' Section 3 requires the Interstate Commerce Commission, within a time fixed, to designate the number, dimensions, location and manner of application of the appliances provided for in the foregoing section. And these designations were to 'remain as the standards of equipment to be used on all cars subject to the provisions of this Act (chapter), unless changed by an order of said Interstate Commerce Commission.'