Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Proffit

• 1915 • 241 U.S. 462 • White Court
In the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Proffit, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company collided with a wagon driven by Mr. Proffit, resulting in his death. His widow filed for damages under Virginia's wrongful death statute and was awarded $20,000 by lower courts on grounds that negligence from the railway company had caused her husband’s demise. However, upon appeal to the Supreme...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1915
Docket: 273
241 U.S. 462
36 S. Ct. 620
60 L. Ed. 1102
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1725
Argued: Mar 10, 1916

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Proffit

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Proffit, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company collided with a wagon driven by Mr. Proffit, resulting in his death. His widow filed for damages under Virginia's wrongful death statute and was awarded $20,000 by lower courts on grounds that negligence from the railway company had caused her husband’s demise. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that there were errors made during trial proceedings which may have influenced jury bias against the railroad company. Specifically noted were instructions given to jurors about presumptions regarding speed violations and failure to ring bells or sound whistles at crossings as evidence of negligence per se (in itself). The court held these instructions incorrect because they did not consider whether such actions would have prevented this specific accident. The ruling emphasized that while railroads must exercise due care in operating trains near highways; if an accident occurs despite taking all reasonable precautions then no liability can be imposed on them merely based on statutory violations without establishing causation between violation and injury.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Proffit, it was argued that the railway company should not be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee while performing his duties. The dissenting justices contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the employer and thus, they disagreed with majority's decision to uphold a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. They believed that this case represented an unwarranted extension of liability under federal law governing employers' responsibilities towards their employees' safety at work. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential implications such decisions could have on businesses and industries if companies were made responsible for accidents without clear proof of negligence or fault.

Opinion written by Justice MPitney
Decided: Jun 05, 1916
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms