Legal Opinion · Dissent

Emch v. Pennsylvania R.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided February 5, 1930No. 5390Published

1DissentHickenlooper, Circuit Judge

I cannot concur. Had the switch stand needlessly been placed so as to allow *830only 13 inches of clearance, it is conceivable to me that this act might be held to have been negligent toward those whose duty required them to be upon the sides of the moving ears (see dissenting opinion in Southern Pac. Co. v. Berkshire, 254 U. S. 415, 419, 41 S. Ct. 162, 65 L. Ed. 335); but the plaintiff was not so injured. To those whose duty it was to throw the switch, the situation was observable at a glance. Prom these the company had the right to expect self-protection. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Nixon, 271 U.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Boldt v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  4. Jacobs v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API