Supreme Court Still v. Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, a railroad cannot escape liability for personal injuries negligently inflicted upon an employee by proving that he had obtained his job by making false representations upon which the railroad rightfully relied in hiring him. Minneapolis, St. Rock, U. Still v. Get free summaries of new U.
Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
Argued: October 19, Decided: November 13, Syllabus U. Reversed and remanded. The Federal Employers' Liability Act [ Footnote 1 ] requires railroads to pay damages for personal injuries negligently inflicted upon their employees. The question this case presents is whether a railroad can escape this statutory liability by proving that an employee so injured has obtained his job by making false representations upon which the railroad rightfully relied in hiring him.
Page U. By special plea, the railroad set up as a defense the contention that petitioner was not "employed" by it within the meaning of the Act, [ Footnote 2 ] and alleged in support of this defense: 1 that petitioner had made false and fraudulent representations in his application for employment with regard to his physical condition and other matters pertinent to his eligibility and capacity to serve as a railroad employee; 2 that petitioner would not have been hired but for these misrepresentations and the fact that they misled the railroad's hiring officials; and 3 that the very physical defects which had been fraudulently concealed from the railroad contributed to the injury upon which petitioner's action is based.
Petitioner's demurrer to this plea was overruled, and evidence by both parties was presented to a jury. When all the evidence was in, however, the trial court directed the jury to bring in a verdict for the defendant on the ground that Page U. Throughout the proceedings in the trial court, petitioner contended that no verdict should be directed against him on the grounds, among others: 1 that the allegations of fraud set up in the railroad's special plea were not sufficient in law to state a defense under the Act; and 2 that, even if the plea were sufficient in law, it rested upon questions of fact which should be submitted to the jury.
