Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain
288 U.S. 333 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff's case rests upon an inference drawn from circumstantial evidence, and that inference is contradicted by the positive, unimpeached testimony of witnesses, the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof, and a directed verdict for the defendant is proper.
Facts:
- A brakeman employed by Pennsylvania Railroad Co. was working in a railyard, riding on a string of two cars descending by gravity from a 'hump' onto a switching track.
- A string of nine cars, operated by fellow employees, followed the brakeman's two-car string onto the same track.
- Another employee, Bainbridge, was standing approximately 900 feet away from the location of the subsequent incident.
- Bainbridge heard a 'loud crash,' which he noted was not an unusual sound in the busy railyard.
- Shortly after hearing the crash, Bainbridge looked and saw the two strings of cars moving together in the same direction, but the brakeman was no longer visible on his car.
- The brakeman's body was subsequently found on the track, having been run over by one or more cars.
- All other employees who were in a position to see, including the three riding the nine-car string, testified that no collision occurred between the nine-car string and the brakeman's two-car string.
Procedural Posture:
- Chamberlain, as administrator for the deceased brakeman's estate, sued Pennsylvania Railroad Co. for negligence in federal district court (the trial court).
- At the end of the trial, the district court judge granted Pennsylvania Railroad Co.'s motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
- Chamberlain appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the case should have been submitted to the jury.
- Pennsylvania Railroad Co. appealed to the U.S. 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:
Does a plaintiff's claim, supported only by an inference from circumstantial evidence, create a question of fact for the jury when it is directly contradicted by positive and unimpeached testimony from several witnesses?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sutherland
No. A claim supported only by an inference does not create a question of fact for the jury when it is directly contradicted by positive testimony. A court must direct a verdict for one party when the evidence is so overwhelmingly in their favor that a contrary verdict would be based on mere speculation. Here, the respondent's case for negligence relied entirely on the testimony of a single witness, Bainbridge, who did not see a collision but merely inferred one from hearing a loud crash and later seeing the cars moving together. This inference is insufficient as a matter of law because it is equally plausible that the crash came from elsewhere in the busy yard. A rebuttable inference of fact must yield to credible, direct, and uncontradicted evidence of the actual occurrence. The testimony of all witnesses in a position to see affirmatively established that no collision occurred. Bainbridge's testimony was further deemed 'simply incredible' given his distance, sharp angle of vision, and the misty conditions, making it physically impossible for him to have seen a collision. Therefore, a verdict for the respondent would rest on speculation, and the trial court was correct to direct a verdict for the petitioner.
Concurring - Justice Stone and Justice Cardozo
These justices concurred in the result without writing a separate opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the power of federal judges to grant directed verdicts (now Judgment as a Matter of Law) and serves as a firm rejection of the 'scintilla rule,' which would allow a case to go to a jury on a mere shred of evidence. It establishes the principle that a jury's verdict cannot be founded on speculation or conjecture, particularly when a plaintiff's circumstantial evidence supports multiple inconsistent inferences. The decision clarifies that an inference from circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to create a jury question when it is flatly contradicted by direct, credible testimony, thus empowering judges to act as gatekeepers of evidentiary sufficiency and prevent verdicts based on implausible theories.
Unlock the full brief for Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain