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

Chicago, Rock Island And Pacific Railway Company v. David Campbell

1898 • 174 U.S. 718 • Fuller Court
In the case of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. David Campbell in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railway company negligence. The plaintiff, David Campbell was injured while working for the defendant's railway company when he fell through an open hatchway that had been left unguarded by another employee. He sued his employer under Iowa state law which held employers liable for injuries caused by fellow employees' negligence if they were acting within...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 Fuller Court
Term: 1898
Docket: 235
174 U.S. 718
19 S. Ct. 873
43 L. Ed. 1147
1899 U.S. LEXIS 1530

Chicago, Rock Island And Pacific Railway Company v. David Campbell

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. David Campbell in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railway company negligence. The plaintiff, David Campbell was injured while working for the defendant's railway company when he fell through an open hatchway that had been left unguarded by another employee. He sued his employer under Iowa state law which held employers liable for injuries caused by fellow employees' negligence if they were acting within their scope of employment at the time of injury. However, federal law only held employers responsible if there was some personal fault or neglect on their part. The court found in favor of Campbell stating that although federal laws did not hold employers accountable for accidents caused by other employees’ carelessness unless it could be traced back to them personally; this rule did not apply because Iowa’s state laws differed from those federally set rules regarding employer liability and therefore took precedence over them in this particular instance.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. David Campbell, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law regarding negligence. He believed that it should be up to a jury to decide whether or not an employer had fulfilled their duty of care towards an employee who was injured while working in dangerous conditions. In this case, he felt there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the railway company could have taken additional precautions to prevent Campbell's injury but failed to do so. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority’s ruling which absolved the company of liability based on its claim that it provided adequate training and supervision for employees like Campbell who worked around moving trains.

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