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

Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore

• 1912 • 228 U.S. 433 • White Court
In the case of Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore, 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seaboard Air Line Railway. The dispute arose when a train owned by the railway company collided with a buggy driven by Mr. Moore's wife and daughter, resulting in their deaths. Mr. Moore sued for damages under South Carolina law which allowed recovery if death was caused due to "wrongful act, neglect or default" of another person or corporation. The court held that while it is true that...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: 1912
Docket: 609
228 U.S. 433
33 S. Ct. 580
57 L. Ed. 907
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2382
Argued: Dec 03, 1912

Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore, 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seaboard Air Line Railway. The dispute arose when a train owned by the railway company collided with a buggy driven by Mr. Moore's wife and daughter, resulting in their deaths. Mr. Moore sued for damages under South Carolina law which allowed recovery if death was caused due to "wrongful act, neglect or default" of another person or corporation. The court held that while it is true that corporations can be held liable for wrongful acts committed through its agents within the scope of their employment, there must be evidence proving such misconduct on part of an agent leading to injury or damage. However, in this case there was no proof showing any negligence on part of any employee from Seaboard Air Line Railway at time and place where accident occurred; hence they could not be held responsible for causing death. This decision clarified how liability laws apply to corporations and emphasized importance of providing substantial evidence when claiming damages against them.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Moore, it was argued that the court majority erred in their interpretation of liability and responsibility under federal law. The dissenting justices believed that the railway company should not be held liable for damages incurred by Mr. Moore due to an accident caused by a third party's negligence, which resulted in his injury while he was on board one of its trains. They contended that there were no grounds to hold the railway responsible as they had fulfilled their duty of care towards passengers by providing safe transportation and could not have foreseen or prevented this particular incident from occurring. Furthermore, they disagreed with imposing such broad liability on carriers without clear legislative intent or precedent supporting such a decision.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Apr 28, 1913
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