Great Northern Railway Co. v. Donaldson

Citations

• 246 U.S. 121
• 38 S. Ct. 230
• 62 L. Ed. 616
• 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1527

Syllabus

<p>Where the state trial and supreme courts have successively found sufficient evidence of negligence to sustain a verdict for plaintiff in an action under the Employers’ Liability Act, it is not the province of this court to weigh the conflicting evidence on the subject; it will go no farther than to ascertain that there is evidence supporting the verdict.</p> <p>The Federal Boiler Inspection Act, c. 103, 36 Stat., 913, is a “statute enacted for the safety of employees,” within the meaning of § 4 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, which latter eliminates assumption of risk in cases where the violation of such a statute contributes to the injury or death of the employee.</p> <p>Where there was evidence tending to prove that a locomotive boiler, which exploded was unsafe in that the button-heads on the bolts of the crown-sheet over the fire-box were unnecessarily large, and subject to deterioration from overheating, when oil was used for fuel; and in that the boiler was not provided with fusible safety plugs and had an accumulation of scale; held, that a request for an instruction stating that no safety statute was applicable, and submitting the question of assumed risk, was inconsistent with § 4 of the Employers’ Liability Act and § 2 of the Boiler Inspection Act.</p> <p>The court instructed to the effect that if the jury believed from a fair preponderance of the evidence that the boiler was not in the proper condition, etc., defined by § 2 of the Boiler Inspection Act, due to the defendant’s negligence in any of the respects above mentioned, there would be no assumption of risk, but that if it was in such condition, but due to defendant’s negligence was defective in any of ■ such respects, and the. employee had actual knowledge of such defects or they were so plainly visible that in the reasonable exercise of his faculties he should, and might be presumed to, have known them, then he assumed the risk. Held, more favorable to the defendant than thelaw required