◆ SpookStack

6 Fatrport, Painesville d& Eastern R. R. Co. vs. Meredith. state railway carriers and thereby creates correlative rights in favor of such injured persons as come within its purview; but the right to enforee the liability which arises from the breach of duty is derived from the principles of the common Jaw. The act does not affect the defense of contributory negligence, and, sinee the case comes here from a state court, the validity of that de fense must be determined in accordance with applicable state law. Moore v. C. dé} O. Ry. Co., 291 U.S. 205, 214 et seg., and eases cited; Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co., — U.S, —, April 32,1934. And see Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester, &e. Ry., 205 U.S. 1, upon second appeal, 220 U. 8. 590, 598. The same is true of the doctrine of the last clear chance, which likewise is not af- fected by the act. If doubt might otherwise exist in respect of the specific application of the cases cited to that doctrine, re- garded independently, the doubt would vanish when consideration is given to the relation which it bears to the rule of contributory negligence, namely, that it amounts in effect to a qualification of that rule, Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 196 Fed. 878, 880, having the result of relieving the injured person from the consequences of his violation of it. Nothing we have said is to be understood as indicating our ac- ceptance, as a substantive principle, of the ruling of the court below in respect of the point. That question is left open for con- sideration and determination when, if ever, it shall be so presented as to admit of its being dealt with upon its merits, Judgment affirmed, A true copy. Test : Clerk, Supreme Court, U. 8.