Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad v. Turnipseed

Citations

• 219 U.S. 35
• 31 S. Ct. 136
• 55 L. Ed. 78
• 1910 U.S. LEXIS 2076

Syllabus

<p>A general classification in a state statute resting upon obvious principles of public policy does not offend the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment because it includes persons not subject to a uniform degree of danger.</p> <p>An employé of a railway company, although not engaged in the actual operation of trains, is nevertheless within the general line of hazard inherent in the railway business.</p> <p>A state, statute abrogating the' fellow-servant rule as to employes of railway companies is not unconstitutional under the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment because it applies to all employés and not only to those engaged in the actual operation of trains; and so held as to § 3559 of the Mississippi constitution of 1890.</p> <p>Legislation providing that proof of one fact shall constitute prima fade evidence of the main fact is within the general power of government to enact rules of evidence; and neither due process of law nor equal protection of the law is denied if there is a rational connection between the fact and the ultimate fact presumed, and the party affecfced is afforded reasonable opportunity to submit to the jury all the facts on the issue.</p> <p>It is not an unreasonable inference that a derailment of railway cars is due to negligence íd construction, maintenance or operation of the track or of the train, and the provisions of § 1985, of the Mississippi Code of 1906, making proof of injury inflicted by the running of cars- or locomotives of a railway company prima fade evidence of negligence on the part of servants of the company, does not deprive the companies of their property without due process of’law or deny to them the equal protection of the law.</p> <p>Such a statute in its operation only supplies an inference of liability in the absence of other evidence contradicting such inference.</p>