Central Vermont Railway Co. v. White
Headline: Court affirms award to brakeman’s family after a fatal rear-end train collision, applies the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, rejects railroad’s procedural defenses, and lets the jury’s general verdict stand.
Holding: In this case the Court held the Federal Employers’ Liability Act governed, affirmed the jury’s award for the brakeman’s family, and rejected the railroad’s state-law procedural defenses and burden-shifting claims.
- Affirms families’ right to recover under the federal employers’ liability law.
- Prevents railroads from shifting the burden of proof onto injured workers in federal cases.
- Allows a general jury verdict without itemized apportionment among beneficiaries.
Summary
Background
A brakeman named Enoch L. White was killed in a rear-end collision while working on an interstate freight train. His administratrix sued the railroad for the benefit of his widow and minor children. A Vermont jury returned a verdict of $7,168, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The case reached the United States Supreme Court after many assignments of error were filed, but only the issues raising federal questions were considered here.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether the railroad was negligent under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and whether state procedural rules could change key federal rights. The Court found evidence sufficient to show the faster train’s leaking cylinder and the clearance card problems caused the collision and White’s death. The Court ruled that assumption of risk did not apply because White had no knowledge of the defects. It held that the federal rule places the burden of proving contributory negligence on the defendant, so Vermont’s different practice could not displace that federal principle. The Court also explained that purely procedural matters, like local pleading rules, are governed by the state forum, but substantive burdens created by federal law must be applied by federal standards.
Real world impact
The decision lets the family’s damages award stand, limits a railroad’s ability to defeat recovery by relying on state procedural rules, and confirms that juries need not itemize or apportion death awards under the federal statute. Many of the other state-law assignments were not reviewed because they did not raise federal questions.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?