Legal Opinion

Cawman v. Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 27, 1940No. 7009PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CLARK, Circuit Judge.

The reluctance underlying the learned district judge’s ruling is plain from the record. We can understand that reluctance. On the one hand, plaintiff’s intestate, a long time employee of the defendant railroad, is dead, and his death occurred violently while he was in the faithful performance of his duties. On the other hand, the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq, remains a hybrid between true workmen’s compensation and the strict common law rules. We say hybrid because it retains in full force the requirement of carrier negligence while relaxing…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. BerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Davis v. CraneCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
  3. Reading Co. v. GearyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1931

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Thomson v. BolesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941
  2. Kirincich v. Standard Dredging Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
  3. Coleman v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1958
  4. Pauly v. McCarthyUtah Supreme Court · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API