Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg R. Co.
United States Supreme Court
205 U.S. 1 (1907)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Adam Schlemmer worked for the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Company (BR&P) (defendant). Schlemmer tried to couple a shovel car to a caboose on a train traveling from New York through Pennsylvania at dusk. Schlemmer had to crouch between the cars and guide a heavy drawbar into a small slot. A conductor warned Schlemmer twice to keep his head down. Schlemmer rose slightly, and his head was crushed. Schlemmer’s wife, Catherine (plaintiff) sued BR&P for Schlemmer’s death. Directing a nonsuit, the court stated that employees took the risks of known dangers to which they voluntarily exposed themselves and found Schlemmer guilty of contributory negligence without specifying the negligence. Catherine moved to remove the nonsuit, arguing that Schlemmer did not assume risk because the shovel car lacked the automatic coupler the Safety Appliance Act (SAA) required. Under the SAA, an employee injured by a noncompliant car was deemed not to have assumed the risk of injury. Catherine’s motion was overruled. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of error. BR&P maintained that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the judgment was based on contributory negligence, which was not a federal question.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
Dissent (Brewer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
