Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Lavender v. Kurn

Supreme Court of the United States · 1946 · Civil Procedure

jury verdictJMOLsufficiency of evidencereasonable jurorFederal Employers' Liability ActFELAjury functionappellate review

Facts

Haney, a switch-tender working in railroad yards near Grand Central Station in Memphis, was found fatally injured near a switch after a Frisco train backed past him at night. The evidence permitted an inference that a loosely hanging mail hook on the side of the backing train could have swung out and struck him in the back of the head, though respondents argued the physical facts made that impossible and suggested he was murdered instead. There was also uncontradicted evidence that the area where Haney worked was very dark and the ground was high and uneven. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff against both railroads.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that Haney was struck by a protruding mail hook and that Illinois Central's dark and uneven work area contributed to his death, so that the verdict could stand. More broadly, the question was whether an appellate court may set aside the jury's verdict where the record contains a reasonable evidentiary basis for the jury's inference, even though conflicting evidence supports another explanation.

Rule

Whenever facts are in dispute or the evidence permits fair-minded people to draw different inferences, the jury chooses among those inferences. Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does reversible error appear; if an evidentiary basis for the verdict exists, the appellate court's function is exhausted and it may not reweigh the evidence, assess credibility, or substitute a different inference.

🔒

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.

In a FELA action tried in federal court in St. Louis, the estate of switch worker Nolan Pierce won a jury verdict against Great Plains Rail. Pierce was found unconscious beside a curve in the track yard in Omaha with a head wound; the plaintiff introduced measurements showing that a loose metal latch on a passing railcar could have swung outward far enough to hit him, while the railroad introduced testimony that the latch could not have reached him and argued he was assaulted by a trespasser.

On appeal, Great Plains Rail argues that the assault theory is more persuasive and that the physical evidence against the latch theory is stronger. What is the proper appellate disposition?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that when evidence permits fair-minded people to draw different inferences, the jury chooses among them. An appellate court may not reweigh conflicting evidence, reassess credibility, or substitute a different inference once there is an evidentiary basis with probative facts supporting the verdict. Reversal is proper only when there is a complete absence of probative facts supporting the jury's conclusion.