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

Myers v. Reading Company

• 1946 • 331 U.S. 477 • Vinson Court
In the 1946 case of Myers v. Reading Company, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an employee who was injured while working for a railroad company. The plaintiff, Mr. Myers, argued that his employer (Reading Company) had violated the Federal Employers' Liability Act by failing to provide him with safe working conditions which led to his injury - he slipped and fell due to oil on top of one of their locomotives. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating...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 Vinson Court
Term: 1946
Docket: 367
331 U.S. 477
67 S. Ct. 1334
91 L. Ed. 1615
1947 U.S. LEXIS 2203
Argued: Feb 06, 1947

Myers v. Reading Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1946 case of Myers v. Reading Company, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an employee who was injured while working for a railroad company. The plaintiff, Mr. Myers, argued that his employer (Reading Company) had violated the Federal Employers' Liability Act by failing to provide him with safe working conditions which led to his injury - he slipped and fell due to oil on top of one of their locomotives. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that it is not within its purview under said act to prescribe specific safety measures or standards for employers in such industries; rather it's up to Congress or administrative agencies like Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Therefore, even though there might have been negligence from Reading Co., they were not liable as per FELA because no statutory duty was breached according them.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Myers v. Reading Company, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the rights and safety of workers. He contended that Congress intended for employers to be held accountable for maintaining safe working conditions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). In his view, this included ensuring that employees were not overworked to a point where their physical condition could contribute to an accident. The majority's ruling absolved employers from liability if they could prove contributory negligence on part of an injured employee - in this case, by showing he had voluntarily chosen to work while fatigued. However, Justice Murphy believed such a defense should not apply when it was foreseeable that fatigue might lead to accidents due its inherent nature as part of railway employment or because employer demands made rest impossible. By allowing companies like Reading Co., which had required Myers work long hours leading up his injury-causing accident, off without any responsibility contradicted FELA’s purpose: protecting railroad workers from dangerous workplace conditions.

Opinion written by Justice HHBurton
Decided: Jun 02, 1947
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