Legal Opinion · Dissent

Britton v. Wabash Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1925No. Docket No. 102Published

1DissentWlEST, J.

I am not in accord with the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Sharpe. Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. Recovery was had under the Federal employers’ liability act. This presents a Federal question. In actions under the Federal employers’ liability act the doctrine of assumption of risk remains as at common law, except as to fellow-servants and in case of violation of a Federal statute enacted for the safety of employees. Southern Railway Co. v. Crockett, 234 U. S. 725 (34 Sup. Ct. 897); Boldt v. Railroad Co., 245 U. S. 441 (38 Sup. Ct. 139); Chapman v.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Boldt v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Southern Railway Co. v. GraySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. McWhirterSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Southern Railway Co. v. CrockettSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  5. Furlow v. United Oil MillsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912

4 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