Nelson Vs. Southern Ry. Co.

Nelson vs Southern Ry. Co.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-04-1918

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/92886

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/92886
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Mar-04-1918
Case Number: 246 U.S. 253
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nelson

Respondent

Southern Ry. Co.

Excerpt

.....the rails, where he had seen others walk. as he stepped upon a cross-tie, a small v-shaped piece of it one and a half inches by six, being rotten, slivered off under his weight. his foot slipped down between the ties, where the ballast was five or six inches below the top of the tie, and, stumbling, he fell and dislocated his knee. the defect in the tie could have been discovered by sounding with an iron rod, and the standard of maintenance of roadbed prescribed by the railway was to ballast to the top of the ties. but neither the condition of the tie nor the failure to ballast to the top of the tie was a defect of a character to impair safety in operation. plaintiff knew that there were always some ties on the line which were partly decayed, and also that the ballast was occasionally below the top of the ties. upon these facts, nelson sought in a state court of north carolina to recover damages from the railway page 246 u. s. 255 under the federal employers' liability act. the trial court refused defendant's motion for a nonsuit, and the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff. judgment thereon was reversed by the supreme court of the state (170 n.c. 170) on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence, and the case came here on writ of error. it is clear that the defendant did not fail in any duty which it owed to the plaintiff. judgment affirmed.

Full Judgment

Nelson v. Southern Ry. Co. - 246 U.S. 253 (1918)
U.S. Supreme Court Nelson v. Southern Ry. Co., 246 U.S. 253 (1918)

Nelson v. Southern Railway Company

No. 129

Argued January 8, 1918

Decided March 4, 1918

246 U.S. 253

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

SYLLABUS

A civil engineer, employed by a railroad company, while surveying within one of its yards, was injured by a fall resulting from a defective tie and a space between ties unfilled by ballast. In an action

Page 246 U. S. 254

under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, held, upon the evidence, that the company did not fail in any duty which it owed to him.

170 N.Car. 170 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Nelson, a civil engineer who had been in the employ of the Southern Railway eleven years, was directed to make a survey in one of its yards. While doing so, he walked on the main track between the rails, where he had seen others walk. As he stepped upon a cross-tie, a small V-shaped piece of it one and a half inches by six, being rotten, slivered off under his weight. His foot slipped down between the ties, where the ballast was five or six inches below the top of the tie, and, stumbling, he fell and dislocated his knee. The defect in the tie could have been discovered by sounding with an iron rod, and the standard of maintenance of roadbed prescribed by the Railway was to ballast to the top of the ties. But neither the condition of the tie nor the failure to ballast to the top of the tie was a defect of a character to impair safety in operation. Plaintiff knew that there were always some ties on the line which were partly decayed, and also that the ballast was occasionally below the top of the ties.

Upon these facts, Nelson sought in a state court of North Carolina to recover damages from the railway

Page 246 U. S. 255

under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The trial court refused defendant's motion for a nonsuit, and the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff. Judgment thereon was reversed by the supreme court of the state (170 N.C. 170) on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence, and the case came here on writ of error.

It is clear that the defendant did not fail in any duty which it owed to the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Same Parties Nelson vs Southern Ry. Co. Same Subject Education