Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain - 288 U.S. 333 (1933)

Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain

288 U.S. 333 (1933)

I. Issue

Whether Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted.

II. Fact
This is an action brought by respondent (P) against petitioner (D) to recover for the death of a brakeman, alleged to have been caused by petitioner's negligence.  The cars ridden by deceased had passed to track 14, his body was found on that track some distance beyond the switch.  He had fallen onto the track and been run over by a car.  Three employees testified that no violent collision occurred, by which P claims the fall of deceased was caused.  Only one witness,  Bainbridge, testified for P.  

III. Procedure
The trial court directed the jury to find a verdict in favor of petitioner (D).  The court of appeals reversed the verdict for P.

IV. Reasoning
There is no conflict in the testimony as to the facts.  Bainbridge said that he heard a "loud crash" but did not said there was a collision.  The desired inference is precluded for the further reason that respondent's right of recovery depends upon the existence of a particular fact which must be inferred from proven facts, and this is not permissible in the face of the positive and otherwise uncontradicted testimony of unimpeached witnesses consistent with the facts actually proved, from which testimony it affirmatively appears that the fact sought to be inferred did not exist.

V. Holding
D's motion should be granted.  We have a case belonging to that class of cases where proven facts give equal support to each of two inconsistent inferences; in which event, neither of them being established, judgment, as a matter of law, must go against the party upon whom rests the necessity of sustaining one of these inferences as against the other, before he is entitled to recover.