Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions
- Prompter Pro

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 3-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions
- Prompter Pro

Start My FREE 3-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Civil Procedure Keyed to Field

View this case in different Casebooks

Civil Procedure Keyed to Glannon

Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Chamberlain

Citation:

288 U.S. 333 (1933)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

The deceased brakeman was working in a railroad switching yard where cars were pushed over a “hump” and allowed to roll by gravity to various tracks. He was riding a two-car string destined for track 14, with a seven-car string ahead and a nine-car string behind, all going to the same track. Shortly after the deceased’s cars passed onto track 14, his body was found on the track, having been run over. The plaintiff’s case rested entirely on the theory that a collision between the nine-car string and the deceased’s two-car string caused him to fall. The only witness supporting this theory was Bainbridge, who stood 900 feet away at an acute angle of 3°33′ from the tracks. He testified he heard a loud crash but admitted such crashes were common in the yard and did not immediately attract his attention. He claimed that after turning, he saw the two strings “moving together,” though he was 50 feet from the side of the track in misty evening conditions. Three employees riding the nine-car string, corroborated by every other employee in position to observe, testified positively that no collision occurred between the two strings in question.

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - Which statement most precisely expresses the Supreme Court’s sufficiency rule in Chamberlain for when a trial judge may remove a negligence case from the jury based on the structure of the inferences available on the record?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) A directed verdict is required when the plaintiff’s proof leaves negligent causation no more probable than non-negligent causation on the essential fact, because the burden of persuasion cannot be satisfied by an inference that is equally consistent with innocence.

Correct! This is correct because the Court treated “equipoise” between negligent and non-negligent causation as a failure of the plaintiff’s burden of persuasion on an essential fact. When the inferential structure does not make liability more probable than non-liability, judicial removal from the jury is required.

(B) A directed verdict is required whenever the defendant offers “positive testimony,” because direct evidence always prevails over circumstantial evidence as a matter of law.

Incorrect. Thisis incorrect because the Court did not adopt a categorical hierarchy where direct testimony always defeats circumstantial proof.

(C) A directed verdict is improper whenever the plaintiff offers any circumstantial evidence from which negligence can be inferred, because weighing inference strength is exclusively for the jury.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because the Court held that speculation and conjecture do not create a jury question even if labeled “circumstantial evidence.”

(D) A directed verdict is proper only if the defendant conclusively disproves negligence beyond reasonable doubt, because removing the case from the jury is an extraordinary remedy.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because the standard is not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the plaintiff—not the defendant—bears the burden to establish jurisdictionally sufficient proof of negligence.

Q.2 - Given Bainbridge’s position (approximately 900 feet away, acute angle, misty conditions), his testimony (heard a crash common in the yard and later saw cars moving together), and the unimpeached testimony of multiple employees in the best position to observe that no collision occurred, which characterization best matches the Court’s treatment of the plaintiff’s theory?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The plaintiff presented competing credible narratives, so the jury had to choose between them even if the plaintiff’s account was less likely.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because the Court did not treat the record as presenting two comparably supported narratives fit for jury choice.

(B) The plaintiff’s circumstantial proof was admissible but became legally irrelevant once the defendant offered any contrary eyewitness testimony.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because the Court did not say circumstantial evidence becomes automatically irrelevant upon contradiction; it evaluated comparative probative force and inferential adequacy.

(C) The plaintiff’s evidence permitted only a speculative inference of collision that could not rationally overcome consistent, uncontroverted eyewitness testimony, so the case lacked legally sufficient proof of the essential collision fact.

Correct! This is correct because Bainbridge’s testimony (distance, angle, weather, and the commonality of yard crashes) supported only an uncertain inference of collision, not a probative showing that collision occurred. The Court emphasized that consistent, unimpeached testimony from observers best positioned to know can negate a weak circumstantial inference and prevent a rational liability finding.

(D) The plaintiff proved collision circumstantially, but failed only because he did not provide corroborating physical evidence of impact.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because the Court did not impose a categorical physical-evidence corroboration requirement for negligence or causation.

Q.3 - Which option most accurately captures the institutional allocation the Court enforced between judge and jury in Chamberlain, given its insistence that verdicts cannot rest on conjecture?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The jury has exclusive constitutional authority to decide whether an inference is reasonable, and courts may not direct a verdict when any inference supports liability.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because the Court rejected the view that any conceivable inference automatically mandates jury submission.

(B) The appellate court must defer to the intermediate appellate court’s view of what inferences are reasonable whenever the record contains conflicting testimony.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because the Supreme Court treated sufficiency as a legal question and did not defer to the intermediate appellate court’s inferential preference.

(C) The trial judge must resolve credibility disputes whenever witnesses are employees of a party, because their interest makes jury evaluation unreliable.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because Chamberlain did not assign credibility determinations to the judge merely because witnesses were employees.

(D) The judge must screen for legal sufficiency by deciding whether the plaintiff’s proof allows a rational finding that liability is more probable than not, and if the record supports liability and non-liability equally, the judge must direct a verdict.

Correct! This is correct because the Court enforced the judge’s gatekeeping duty to prevent jury verdicts grounded in conjecture by requiring a rational probability of liability under the governing burden of proof. Where the record supports liability and non-liability equally on the decisive factual proposition, the case is legally insufficient and must be withheld from the jury.

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Chamberlain