1. A Florida statute provides that railroad companies shall be
liable for damages done to persons or property by the running of
their locomotives, unless they make it appear that their agents
exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, the
presumption in all cases being against the company.
Held:
(1) The fact that a like rule is not applied against carriers by
motor and other litigants does not render the statute unduly
discriminatory against railroads in violation of the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P.
287 U. S.
90.
(2) The objection that it violates the due process clause of the
Amendment,
cf. Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Henderson,
279 U. S. 639, was
not properly presented in this case. P.
287 U. S.
91.
2. The court may, and generally will, disregard a specification
that is so uncertain or otherwise deficient as not substantially to
comply with the rule respecting assignments of errors, even if the
opposing party raises no question as to the sufficiency of the
specification and treats it as adequate.
Id.
3. An appeal from a state court on which no federal question is
presented will be dismissed. P.
287 U. S. 92.
103 Fla. 477, 137 So. 719, appeal dismissed.
Appeal from a judgment sustaining in part a recovery from the
railroad company for damages suffered by the plaintiff in a grade
crossing accident.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment obtained by appellee upon
the ground that § 7051 of the Compiled General Laws 1927, as
construed below, is repugnant to the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 237,
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.
Page 287 U. S. 87
§ 344. Section 7051 declares:
"A railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to
persons, livestock or other property by the running of the
locomotives, or cars, or other machinery of such company, or for
damage done by any person in the employ and service of such
company, unless the company shall make it appear that their agents
have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, the
presumption in all cases being against the company."
Watson sued the railway company to recover damages caused by a
collision at a highway grade crossing, between one of defendant's
locomotives and plaintiff's mule team being driven by his employee.
The declaration alleged that the collision was caused by the
negligence of defendant in that it operated the train at excessive
speed and failed by whistle or otherwise to give warning. Defendant
pleaded not guilty and that the negligence of the driver was the
sole cause of the accident. Plaintiff introduced evidence showing
the collision and resulting damage. Defendant called witnesses
whose testimony tended to show that its employees were not
negligent and that the driver's negligence was the sole cause of
the accident. Plaintiff produced witnesses in rebuttal who gave
evidence to show that the accident resulted from the negligent
failure of defendant to give proper warning.
In the course of its charge, the court instructed the jury: (1)
the plea of not guilty imposes on plaintiff the burden of proving
that the damage was caused by alleged negligence of defendant;
(2)
"our statute provides that a railroad company shall be liable
for any damage done to stock or property of another by the running
of locomotives or cars unless the company shall make it appear that
their agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and
diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the
company;"
(3) if defendant's employees and plaintiff's teamster were at
fault, the plaintiff may recover the
Page 287 U. S. 88
amount of his damages reduced in proportion to the contributory
negligence of his servant; (4) if the evidence establishes that the
damage alleged was caused by the running of the locomotive,
plaintiff may recover
"unless the defendant company shall make it appear by a
preponderance of the evidence that its employees exercised all
ordinary and reasonable care and diligence in the premises;"
(5) the defendant submitted a request to charge which was by the
court "slightly modified" and given as follows:
"The presumption of negligence cast upon railroads by our
statute in personal injury cases ceases when the railroad company
has made it appear by a preponderance of the evidence that its
agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and
diligence. In the presence of such proof by the railroad company,
the jury do not take any such presumption with them to the jury
room in weighing the evidence and in coming to a determination. The
statute does not create such a presumption as will outweigh proofs,
or that will require any greater or stronger or more convincing
proofs to remove it."
Defendant submitted two requests for instructions in respect of
negligence on the part of the teamster, but the court refused to
give them.
The jury gave plaintiff a verdict for the amount of his damages,
and the trial court entered judgment thereon. The Supreme Court
sustained the finding of negligence on the part of the defendant,
but held that the evidence established contributory negligence, and
ordered that, unless plaintiff enter a remittitur for a specified
sum, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. The
plaintiff made the reduction, and judgment was entered for the
remainder.
The Florida statute in question is the same as that of Georgia
condemned by this Court as so unreasonable and arbitrary as to be
repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It
was not necessary to
Page 287 U. S. 89
consider, and we did not decide, whether the statute also
violated the equal protection clause.
Western & Atlantic R.
Co. v. Henderson, 279 U. S. 639,
rev'g 167 Ga. 22, 144 S.E. 905.
Appellant failed in the trial court to assail the statute on any
ground upon which rests our decision in the
Henderson
case. In its motion for a new trial and in the assignment of errors
submitted with its proposed bill of exceptions, it asserted as to
each of the instructions numbered (2), (3), and (4) that the court
erred in so charging, "because the effect of said charge was to
deprive the defendant of the equal protection of the law, contrary
to the Constitution of the United States." And it made the same
objection to another charge which, so far as concerns questions
before us, is not to be distinguished from instruction (4).
Appellant has not included in the record its request which was by
the court modified and given. It does not appear how the
instruction differed from the request, and, as appellant has not
complained of the modification or of the charge as given, the
instruction is to be considered as not differing materially from
the request and to have been acquiesced in and accepted by
appellant. The record on which the case was taken to the state
supreme court discloses no contention on the part of appellant
that, as construed at the trial, the statute is unreasonable or
arbitrary, or that it operated as a denial of due process of law.
But the opinion of that court states -- whether inadvertently, we
need not consider -- that some assignments of error question the
constitutionality of the section as denying the defendant "due
process of law" and the equal protection of the laws. After
reference to our decision in the
Henderson case and to
Mobile, J. & K.C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S.
35, the court said:
"All that the statute does in this state in creating a
presumption is thereby to cast upon the railroad company the burden
of affirmatively showing that its agents exercised all ordinary and
reasonable
Page 287 U. S. 90
care and diligence, and here the statutory presumption
ends,"
held that the trial court "properly instructed the jury with
regard to the presumption in this case," and overruled appellant's
contention that the statute is unconstitutional because it does not
apply to busses as well as to railroads.
The errors assigned and urged here amount to no more than that,
as construed, the section operated to deny appellant equal
protection because it required appellant to carry throughout the
trial a burden not put upon motor carriers for hire or other
litigants, and that the refusal of the trial court to give to the
jury the requested instructions in respect of negligence on the
part of the teamster deprived appellant of the equal protection of
the laws.
In view of numerous decisions of this Court sustaining
legislative classifications for various purposes and declaring the
principles upon which their constitutional validity depends, it
does not require any discussion to show that the mere
discrimination resulting from the application of the presumption
created by § 7051 to appellant and other railroad companies and the
failure of the state to prescribe the same or a like rule in
similar actions against carriers by motor for hire or other
litigants does not violate the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant's contention to the contrary is
without substance.
Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Humes,
115 U. S. 512,
115 U. S. 522;
Missouri Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U.
S. 205,
127 U. S. 209;
Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Pontius, 157 U.
S. 209,
157 U. S. 210;
St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Mathews,
165 U. S. 1,
165 U. S. 24
et seq.; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ellis,
165 U. S. 150,
165 U. S. 157
et seq.; Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
Matthews, 174 U. S. 96;
Mobile, J. & K.C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, supra, pp.
219 U. S. 41-42;
Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312,
257 U. S.
337.
The assignments of error accompanying this appeal contain a
single reference to due process. It is in a specification
Page 287 U. S. 91
which merely asserts that the state supreme court
"erred in holding that the scope and effect of § 7051 . . . did
not in the trial of this case in the court below deprive the . . .
Railway Company . . . of its property without due process of law
and of the equal protection of the law as guaranteed to it"
by § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is essential to a proper presentation of points relied on for
reversal that the statute and rules of court requiring and
governing the forms of assignments of errors be complied with.
Every appeal must be accompanied by an assignment of errors which
shall "set out separately and particularly each error asserted."
R.S. § 997, 28 U.S.C. § 862; Supreme Court Rule 9. The purpose is
to enable the court, as well as opposing counsel, readily to
perceive what points are relied on. The substitution of vague and
general statement for the prescribed particularity sets the rule at
naught.
Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. Seymour,
91 U. S. 646,
91 U. S. 648;
Briscoe v. District of Columbia, 221 U.
S. 547,
221 U. S.
549-550. And, as the rule makes for convenience and
certainty in the consideration of cases, the court may, and
generally it will, disregard a specification that is so uncertain
or otherwise deficient as not substantially to comply with the
rule, even if the opposing party raises no question and treats it
as adequate. The quoted assignment amounts merely to a complaint
that the Supreme Court erred in not reversing the judgment of the
trial court because, "in the trial of this case," the "scope and
effect" of the section deprived appellant of its property in
violation of both the due process and equal protection clauses. An
allegation of error could scarcely be more indefinite. It does not
identify any ruling at the trial or specify any basis for the
assertion of deprivation of constitutional right. It presents no
question for our consideration.
Page 287 U. S. 92
The assignments of error based upon the court's failure to
instruct the jury concerning contributory negligence of plaintiff's
teamster in accordance with defendant's requests present no
question for decision here. The record discloses no foundation for
the claim that the refusal so to charge was, as appellant asserts,
"because of the statute." It does not appear that the trial court
regarded the statute as having any relation to the precaution or
care required of plaintiff's driver when approaching the crossing.
The claim that such refusals transgressed the constitutional rule
of equality is utterly without foundation.
No substantial constitutional question being presented, the
appeal will be dismissed.
Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan,
192 U. S. 29;
Erie R. v. Solomon, 237 U. S. 427,
237 U. S. 431;
Sugarman v. United States, 249 U.
S. 182;
Zucht v. King, 260 U.
S. 174;
Roe v. Kansas, 278 U.
S. 191.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.