Case Citator › Boeing Co. v. Shipman

Boeing Co. v. Shipman

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
411 F.2d 365
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
146 of 146
Citing cases (total)
2,444
Treatment dates
1997
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 146 flagged citations for Boeing Co. v. Shipman have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. The reviewed Fifth and Eleventh Circuit opinions otherwise treated Boeing's en banc directed-verdict and judgment-as-a-matter-of-law standard as controlling and repeatedly applied it to evidentiary-sufficiency questions.
More on how this was screened

Most nearby “overruled” language reported Boeing's own displacement of Planters Manufacturing Co. v. Protection Mutual Insurance Co., referred to trial-court rulings, concerned unrelated precedent, or copied the history of Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc. Direct review of Gautreaux confirms that the Fifth Circuit en banc overruled only Boeing's Jones Act/FELA duty-of-care formulation; it did not disturb Boeing's general Rule 50 standard. Maxey v. Freightliner Corp. reaffirmed that standard en banc, and the later opinions continued to follow it.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,444 later cases cite Boeing Co. v. Shipman; 146 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Boeing Co. v. Shipman?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The Fifth Circuit en banc overruled Boeing's Jones Act/FELA formulation that an employer owed a heightened “great care” duty under a slight-negligence standard, restoring ordinary prudence as the duty of care for both employers and seamen.

    Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc. · Fifth Circuit · filed

    In Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc), however, the standards became more nebulous. We misinterpreted Rogers’s “any part, even the slightest” language to refer not to the evidence necessary to support a jury verdict, but to an employer’s duty of care. We concluded that “[sjlight negligence, necessary to support an [sic] FELA action, is defined as ‘a failure to exercise great care,’ and that burden of proof, obviously, is much less than the burden required to sustain recovery in ordinary negligence actions.” Id. at 371.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Boeing Co. v. Shipman and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace