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

Missouri, Kansas And Texas Railway Company v. May

• 1903 • 194 U.S. 267 • Fuller Court
In the 1903 case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Mr. May was injured while working for the railway company and sued for damages under a state law that held employers liable for injuries caused by fellow employees' negligence if they were acting within their scope of employment at the time of injury. The court found this law to be unconstitutional as it violated due process rights provided...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: 1903
Docket: 185
194 U.S. 267
24 S. Ct. 638
48 L. Ed. 971
1904 U.S. LEXIS 853

Missouri, Kansas And Texas Railway Company v. May

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1903 case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Mr. May was injured while working for the railway company and sued for damages under a state law that held employers liable for injuries caused by fellow employees' negligence if they were acting within their scope of employment at the time of injury. The court found this law to be unconstitutional as it violated due process rights provided by Fourteenth Amendment because it imposed liability without fault on employers who had no control over their employees’ actions during work hours or any ability to prevent such accidents from happening.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. May, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law. He contended that it was well-established in common law that a person who voluntarily places himself in a dangerous situation cannot recover damages if he is injured as a result. However, this principle should not apply when an individual has no choice but to expose themselves to danger due to their employment conditions or circumstances beyond their control. In such cases, employers have an obligation to take reasonable precautions for the safety of their employees. The railway company failed in its duty by neglecting necessary repairs on its tracks which led directly to May's injury while performing his duties as required by his job position with them; therefore they should be held liable for negligence and pay compensation accordingly.

Opinion written by Justice OWHolmes
Decided: May 02, 1904
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