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

Louisville And Nashville Railroad Company v. Behlmer

• 1899 • 175 U.S. 648 • Fuller Court
In the case of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Behlmer, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a train operated by Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company collided with a wagon driven by Mr. Behlmer at a railway crossing resulting in his death. His wife sued for damages alleging negligence on part of the railroad company as they did not provide adequate warning signals at that particular crossing point which was frequently used...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: 1899
Docket: 46
175 U.S. 648
20 S. Ct. 209
44 L. Ed. 309
1900 U.S. LEXIS 1713
Argued: Apr 17, 1899

Louisville And Nashville Railroad Company v. Behlmer

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Behlmer, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a train operated by Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company collided with a wagon driven by Mr. Behlmer at a railway crossing resulting in his death. His wife sued for damages alleging negligence on part of the railroad company as they did not provide adequate warning signals at that particular crossing point which was frequently used by public traffic. The court held that while it is indeed incumbent upon railroads to exercise reasonable care to prevent accidents at crossings, this does not necessarily translate into an obligation to maintain flagmen or other specific warnings at all such points unless warranted by special circumstances like heavy vehicular traffic etc., which were absent in this case. Furthermore, evidence suggested that Mr.Behlmer had clear view of incoming trains from quite some distance but failed to take necessary precautions himself before attempting to cross thereby contributing significantly towards his own demise through contributory negligence. Thus,the court concluded that there was no actionable fault on part of the defendant i.e.,the railroad company leading them ultimately towards victory in this lawsuit.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Behlmer disagreed with the majority's ruling that a railroad company could be held liable for an accident caused by its employee, even if it had no knowledge or control over the employee's actions at the time. The dissent argued that this interpretation was too broad and would unfairly penalize companies for accidents they couldn't reasonably prevent. They contended that liability should only apply when a company has some degree of control or influence over their employees' actions, such as through negligence in hiring or supervision. Without this requirement, they believed businesses could face undue financial burdens from lawsuits beyond their control.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Jan 08, 1800
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