288 U.S. 333 (1933)
In 1933 the respondent brought an action against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to recover for the death of a brakeman.1 The complaint alleged that the deceased was assisting in yard work breaking up and making up trains operating in interstate commerce. It further alleged that other cars were negligently caused to collide violently with the cars he was riding, throwing him to the track where he was run over.2
The yard contained a lead track crossing a hump and numerous branching switching tracks.3 The deceased had charge of two gondola cars headed for track 14, with a string of seven cars immediately ahead and a string of nine cars behind, all also destined for track 14.4 His body was found on that track some distance beyond the switch.5
Three employees riding the nine-car string testified that no collision occurred with the two-car string.6 They were corroborated by every other employee in a position to see.7 The respondent's case rested solely on the testimony of Bainbridge.8 He stood near the yardmaster's office.9 Bainbridge observed the strings passing at different speeds before hearing a loud crash and later seeing the two strings moving together with the deceased no longer in sight.10
Bainbridge was positioned fifty feet north of the track and nine hundred feet from where the body was found.11 All witnesses in a position to observe directly testified that there was no contact between the nine-car string and the two-car string.12 At the conclusion of the evidence the district court directed a verdict for the railroad, which the court of appeals reversed with Judge Swan dissenting.13
Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to require submission of the negligence claim to the jury?14
When proven facts give equal support to two inconsistent inferences, judgment as a matter of law must go against the party with the burden of sustaining one inference over the other.15 A rebuttable inference must yield to credible evidence from unimpeached witnesses showing the inferred fact did not exist.16
No. The established facts demonstrate that Bainbridge's observations of a loud crash and the strings moving together after the fact gave equal support to the inference of a collision between the nine-car and two-car strings.17 Other explanations such as contact with the seven-car string or unrelated movements in the busy yard were equally possible. Bainbridge's location fifty feet north of the track and nine hundred feet from the body made it physically impossible to determine actual contact at the acute angle of vision.18 The trial evidence was therefore insubstantial and insufficient to justify submission to the jury.19
The evidence was not sufficient to require submission of the negligence claim to the jury.20