St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Brown

Citations

• 241 U.S. 223
• 36 S. Ct. 602
• 60 L. Ed. 966
• 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1745

Syllabus

<p>Minneapolis & St. Louis B. R. v. Bombolis, ante, p. 211, followed to effect that a verdict in an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act which is not unanimous, but which is legal under the law of the State, is not violative of the Seventh Amendment, and that such Amendment has no application to proceedings in state ■ courts.</p> <p>The fact that after the close of the testimony a plaintiff suing under both' the Employers’ Liability Act and the Safety Appliance Act withdrew his claim under the latter act, held in this case not to amount to a withdrawal of the testimony in regard to defective condition of the appliances and entitle defendant to direction of verdict on the ground of assumption of risk as the testimony was ■ admissible under the issues based on the former act.</p> <p>The fact that the state appellate court may have inaccurately expressed in one respect its reasons for affirmance, does not require this court to reverse, if, in fact, no reversible error exists.</p> <p>The trial court having instructed the jury that if they found the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence they should reduce his damages in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to him, failure to define the word proportion held in this case, not error.</p>