Lavender v. Kurn
327 U.S. 645 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court may not re-weigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case. If there is any evidentiary basis, however slight, for the jury's conclusion, the verdict must be upheld.
Facts:
- L.E. Haney was employed as a switch-tender for the Illinois Central Railroad Company and the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (Frisco) in a Memphis switchyard.
- On the evening of December 21, 1939, Haney's duties required him to throw a switch to allow a Frisco passenger train to back into a station.
- The area where Haney worked was very dark and the ground consisted of an uneven mound of cinders and dirt.
- Shortly after the train passed the switch, Haney was found unconscious lying on the ground north of the tracks.
- Haney had suffered a fractured skull from a blow to the back of the head, an injury from which he died.
- The cause of the blow was disputed: Haney's administrator theorized he was struck by a mail hook hanging loosely from the side of the train, which could swing outward.
- The railroads theorized Haney was murdered by a transient, pointing to the fact that many frequented the area and his wallet was later found empty.
- There were no eyewitnesses to the event that caused Haney's injury.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator of L. E. Haney's estate sued the trustees of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway and the Illinois Central Railroad Company in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri (a state trial court).
- A jury returned a verdict for the petitioner, awarding $30,000 in damages, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The respondents (the railroads) appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that there was no substantial evidence of negligence to submit the case to the jury.
- The petitioner (Haney's administrator) was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May an appellate court set aside a jury verdict in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case on the grounds of insufficient evidence when the jury's conclusion is based on a reasonable inference drawn from circumstantial evidence, even though other contrary inferences are also possible?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy
No. An appellate court cannot set aside the jury's verdict. A reviewing court's function is exhausted once it determines that there is an evidentiary basis for the jury's conclusion, and it is immaterial that the court might draw a contrary inference or feel that another conclusion is more reasonable. The court reasoned that the jury's role is to resolve factual disputes and draw inferences from the evidence. Here, there was evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that the mail hook struck Haney, based on the nature of the wound, the dimensions and potential swing of the hook, and Haney's position on the mound. The existence of a competing theory, such as murder, does not negate the evidentiary basis for the jury's chosen conclusion. To overturn the verdict would be an undue invasion of the jury's historic function to weigh conflicting evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the sanctity of the jury's role in FELA litigation, establishing what is often referred to as the 'scintilla of evidence' standard. It severely limits the power of appellate courts to overturn jury verdicts, making it much more difficult for defendants to win on appeal by arguing insufficient evidence. The decision ensures that as long as a plaintiff can present some probative facts to support a theory of negligence, the case will be decided by a jury, whose verdict will be nearly immune to reversal on factual grounds. This precedent has made FELA a notably plaintiff-friendly statute by prioritizing the jury's fact-finding function over an appellate court's review.
Unlock the full brief for Lavender v. Kurn