Central Vermont Railway Co. v. White

Supreme Court of the United States · 1915 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsFELAcontributory negligenceburden of proofstate procedure vs substancelex forifederal questionwrit of error from state court

Facts

Enoch L. White was a brakeman on an interstate freight train of the Central Vermont Railway and was killed in a rear-end collision. A faster following freight train had been given a clearance card indicating the track was clear, and its engine leaked steam so heavily that the engineer could not see the tail lights of White's train. The evidence showed that White and his crew had no notice that the faster train was following them. White's administratrix sued for the benefit of his widow and minor children and recovered a general verdict.

Issue

Whether, in a FELA action brought in state court, the state may place on the plaintiff the burden of proving the decedent's freedom from contributory negligence under state law. Also, whether the trial court erred by not charging assumption of risk and by allowing a general verdict without jury apportionment among the widow and minor children.

Rule

In actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, federal law governs the substantive incidents of the claim, including the burden of proof on contributory negligence; that burden rests on the defendant. State courts may follow their own rules on matters affecting the remedy, but not where the state rule would alter the substance of the federally created cause of action. The Act does not require jury apportionment of damages among beneficiaries in the verdict merely because recovery is for multiple eligible beneficiaries.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maya Ortiz, a switch operator for Lakeview Freight Lines, was injured while working in interstate rail service near Toledo, Ohio. She sued in an Ohio court under the federal employers' liability statute, and the railroad requested a jury instruction that Maya had to prove she exercised due care because Ohio law treats plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence as part of the prima facie case.

Should the trial judge give the requested instruction?

Explanation. The majority held that although states control many remedial matters, a state rule making the plaintiff prove freedom from contributory negligence changes the substance of the federally created claim. In FELA litigation, contributory negligence is for the defendant to prove. A state court therefore may not instruct the jury that the plaintiff must negate contributory negligence as part of her own case. (Derived from Central Vermont Railway Co. v. White (1915).)