Search Supreme Court Cases
FERGUSON V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO., 356 U. S. 41 (1958)
U.S. Supreme Court
Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 356 U.S. 41 (1958)
Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
Decided March 17, 1958
356 U.S. 41
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
In this case arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, held: the proofs were sufficient to submit to the jury the question whether employer negligence played a part in producing petitioner's injury. Therefore, certiorari is granted, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Reported below: 307 S.W.2d 385.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. We hold that the proofs were sufficient to submit to the jury the question whether employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner's injury. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U.S. 920; Futrelle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U.S. 920; Deen v. Gulf, C. & S.F. R. Co., 353 U.S. 925; Thomson v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 353 U.S. 926; Arnold v. Panhandle & S.F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 360; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U. S. 901; McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517; Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18; Honeycutt v. Wabash R. Co., 355 U. S. 424. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is
reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in the result for the reasons given in his Memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18. For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 352 U. S. 524.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.
MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER dissents.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.