Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co.
250 U.S. 76 (1919)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 250 U.S. 76 (1919)

Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Company

No. 241

Argued March 18, 1919

Decided May 19, 1919

250 U.S. 76

Syllabus

In response to an inquiry from the jury, who had retired to consider of their verdict, the trial court sent them a supplementary instruction in writing on a question of contributory negligence. Held error, the parties and their counsel being absent and no opportunity being given them either to be present or to make timely objection. P. 250 U. S. 80.

Page 250 U. S. 77

An opportunity afterwards to except to an instruction and to the manner of giving it is not equivalent to an opportunity to be present during the proceedings, since the prime and essential function of an exception is to direct the mind of the trial judge to the point in question so that he may reconsider and change his ruling if convinced of error. P. 250 U. S. 81.

In jury trials, erroneous instructions are presumptively harmful. P. 250 U. S. 82.

An erroneous instruction may neutralize a correct one on the same subject and introduce material error. P. 250 U. S. 83.

Under the law of Pennsylvania, a servant who goes on with perilous work under the peremptory orders of his master, although knowing the attendant danger and having time to consider, is not guilty of contributory negligence unless he knows, or has reason to suppose, that the danger is inevitable or imminent. P. 250 U. S. 82.

242 F. 258, reversed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.