Document: 352 U.S. 500 77 S.Ct. 444 1 L.Ed.2d 515 James C. ROGERS, Petitioner,v.MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. John W. WEBB, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL Virgil HERDMAN, PENNSYLVANIA Henry FERGUSON, MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, Inc. Nos. 28, 42, 46 and 59. Decided Feb. 25, 1957. Mr. Mark D. Eagleton, St. Louis, Mo., for the petitioner. Donald B. Sommers, respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion of Court. A jury in Circuit Court Louis awarded damages to petitioner this action under Federal Employers' Liability Act.1 The Supreme Missouri reversed upon ground that petitioner's evidence did not support finding respondent's liability.2 This granted certiorari consider question whether decision invaded jury's function.3 2 Petitioner was a laborer section gang, working on July 17, 1951, along portion double-track line which, near Garner, Arkansas, runs generally north south. tracks are ballast topping surface dirt 'dump' with sloping sides, there is path about yard wide bordering each side between crest slope edge allast. Weeds vegetation, killed chemically preparatory burning them off, covered paths slopes. Petitioner's foreman assigned him burn off weeds vegetation—the first time he given task two months had worked He testified it customary such vegetation flame thrower operated from car running tracks. Railroad witnesses testified, however, respondent discontinued use throwers at least year earlier because fires started by sometimes spread beyond railroad right way. 3 supplied crude hand torch instructed west or three feet down slope. events leading his mishap occurred after proceeded work point within thirty thirty-five years culvert adjoining path. 4 without contradiction, other members gang stop what they were doing when train passed take positions ties observe journals passing hotboxes. instructions explicit go either stand ends far track. safety precaution 'the sound one would deaden another possibly come way.' 5 On day, heard whistle which approaching behind east promptly 'quit firing' ran place mentioned culvert. standing few observing hotboxes became enveloped smoke flames. fanned flames weeds, carrying fire around position. threw arm over face, retreated quickly back slipped fell top culvert, suffering serious injuries sought suit. 6 complaint alleges negligence 'required close proximity defendant's tracks, whereon trains moved passed, causing said therefrom dangerously plaintiff requiring move away danger.' Negligence also alleged properly maintained because, instead usual flat giving firm footing workmen, 'covered loose gravel provide adequate sufficient thus circumstances.' 7 We think testimony ordinarily done cars not, as here, workman foot using torch, considered uncontradicted where narrow atop furtherance orders watch hotboxes, ample played part injury. These probative facts could find should have been aware conditions created likelihood petitioner, performing duties required him, suffer just an injury did.4 Common experience teaches both will fan fire, person suddenly instinctively react retreating danger process pay scant heed dangers may imperil him. In view, irrelevant consideration immediate reason slipping presence negligently allowed remain surface, some cause identified evidence. 8 based its reversal admission knew primary duty fire. From premise court reasoned inattentive emergency confronted 'was brought himself.'5 It if, fall rolled out yet inattention caused obliged 'to blindly fall,' 'something extraordinary, unrelated to, disconnected incline culvert.'6 9 interpret foregoing mean found matter law conduct sole mishap. But agreed say relieved Indeed, no witness instruction countermanded. At best, uncertainty fact arises testimony, circumstance court, but jury, tribunal determine fact. 10 assume reached court's conclusion. But, supported verdict favorable petitioner,7 exclusively make.8 return if mishap.9 must obedient trial judge's charge case resulted negligence. 11 be read basing ground, namely, appeared probable any respondent, jury. actions statute, although employee's proofs favor, unless judge can exclude idea due causes defendant connected, or, stated way, so strong grounds probability, conclusion defendant. That governing principle defining proof requires submission these cases. implies view standard saying show negligence' employer, '(t)he test causal connection that, absent negligent act occurred.'10 language proximate causation makes dependent sole, efficient, producing 12 Under statute simply justify enployer part, even slightest, death sought.11 does evidence, reason, attribute result causes, including contributory negligence.12 Judicial appraisal presented narrowly limited single inquiry whether, drawn employer all death.13 Judges fix their sights primarily make and, met, bound made allows choice probabilities. expressly imposes liability 'in whole part' negligence.14 (Emphasis added.) 13 enacted Congress dissatisfied common-law master servant.15 supplants more drastic paying employer's stripped defenses practical purposes cases today rarely presents than however small, subject suit.16 burden employee obligation arises, proof, though entirely circumstantial,17 inference. 14 adopting particularly concerned issues fault decided whenever fair-minded men reach conclusions evidence.18 Originally, judicial administration 1908 Act substantially employees determination. courts developed concepts assumption risk19 coverage law,20 defeated claims law. corrected 1939 amendments removed fetters hobbled full play basic congressional intention leave fact-finding function raised cases—whether mishap.21 15 Cognizant effectuate secure determination, vigilant exercise power review appears litigants improperly deprived determination.22 Some has shortcomings prefer workmen's compensation scheme. seen fit substitute scheme cannot relieve present granting correct instances improper prevent erosion niggardly construction. Similarly, once granted, wise failure our afford same measure merits every case.23 16 kind misconception evidenced below, fails into account special features statutory significantly different ordinary action, number cases.24 relatively large percentage reviewed, lower proper scope integral case.25 decisions teach vested infrequent cases26 jurors honestly differ Special important reasons grant certainly federal state persistently deprive 17 remaining questions Missouri, unsubstantial. Accordingly, we remand proceedings inconsistent opinion. 18 judgment reversed. 19 Reversed. 20 BURTON concurs result. 21 REED affirm Missouri. 22 For dissenting opinions FRANKFURTER, HARLAN, see 518, 459. 35 Stat. 65, amended, 36 291, 53 1404, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., U.S.C.A. seq. 284 S.W.2d 467. 350 964, 76 440, 100 L.Ed. 837. Lillie Thompson, 332 459, 68 140, 92 73. page 472. Ibid. Myers Reading Co., 331 477, 67 1334, 91 1615. 'The very essence (the jury's) select among conflicting inferences considers most reasonable.' Tennant Peoria & P.U.R. 321 29, 35, 64 409, 412, 88 520. charged negligence, any, merely diminution damages. 66, 53, 53. Instruction No. follows: instructs applicable care own safety, times, while 'In connection, you believe 1951 plaintiff, Rogers, right-of-way 'Garner Crossing' City eyes, backwards sidewards looking direction walking, further circumstances exercising looked failed do failing guilty injuries, directly contributed particulars submitted herein, then, event, entitled recover against defendant, your favor defendant.' 471. Coray Southern Pacific 335 520, 69 275, 93 208. '* * (T)he shall bar recovery, diminished proportion amount attributable employee: Provided, who injured held violation common carrier employee.' Proof certain safety-appliance statutes proves eliminates purpose. Note 11, supra. only issue then causation. Carter Atlanta A.B.R. 338 430, 70 226, 94 236; Moreover, '(w)hat constitutes statute's question, varying accordance differing conceptions local laws purposes. decisional formulating applying concept governs.' Urie 337 163, 174, 1018, 1027, 1282. (E)very engaging commerce several States liable resulting officers, agents, *.' 51, 51; 523—524, 276, 277, comprehensive survey history FELA, Griffith, Vindication National Public Policy Act, Law Contemp.Prob. 160. Tiller Atlantic Coast Line R. 318 54, 63 444, 87 610. Circumstantial sufficient, certain, satisfying persuasive direct Robert Edwards, Wheat. 187, 190, 238. While protest undue comment judges facts, original 1906 provided: 'All jury.' 34 232. Hearings before Senate Committee Interstate Commerce H.R. 239, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. 68—69. inclusion provision, relating determine,' proposed adopted. prevailed surplusage light Seventh Amendment embodying tradition Education Labor S. 5307, 60th 8—9, 45—46. Seaboard Air Co. Horton, 233 492, 635, 58 1062. Tipton v Atchison, T. S.F.R. 298 141, 56 715, 80 1091; Illinois Central Behrens, 473, 646, 1051. 1404. Court's interpretation amendments, 610 (assumption risk); Gileo, 351 u.S. 493, 952, 1357 (coverage); Reed Pennsylvania 502, 958, 1366 (coverage). Jacob New York City, 315 752, 62 854, 86 1166. 23 adopt reasoning regard Part I HARLAN'S concurring 42 59, 24 See Appendix DOUGLAS Wilkerson McCarthy, 336 71, 413, 422, 497; Note, Harv.L.Rev. 1441. 25 Rule 19, 28 authorizes 'where therefor,' deciding substance way probably accord with, conflict 26 presented, following cases: Schulz 523, 608, 668; Stone York, L.R. 344 407, 73 358, 97 441; A. B.R. Anderson 333 821, 1108; L.Ed 73; 1615; Ellis Union Pac. 329 649, 598, 572; Jesionowski Boston M.R. 452, 401, 416; Lavender Kurn, 327 645, 66 740, 90 916; Keeton 326 689, 135, 405; Blair Baltimore O.R. 323 600, 65 545, 89 490; 574, 421, 465; 520; Bailey Vt. 319 350, 1062, 1444; 610; Seago Cent. 781, 806, 1188; Jenkins 313 256, 61 934, 85 1316. affirmed Moore Chesapeake 340 573, 71 428, 95 547; Eckenrode 329, 91, 41; Brady 320 476, 232, 239.

Category: 7