Document: 375 U.S. 208 84 S.Ct. 291 11 L.Ed.2d 256 Claude DENNIS, Petitioner,v.The DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD CO. No. 25. Argued Nov. 19, 1963. Decided Dec. 9, Wayne L. Black, Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioner. Clifford Ashton, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, a section laborer employed by respondent railroad, brought this suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., in Utah State Court to recover damages personal injury sustained result of respondent's alleged negligence. The jury, finding negligent and petitioner contributorily negligent, assessed 'general damages' at $20,000 deducted $10,000 'by reason contributory negligence,' leaving verdict Supreme vacated jury ordered entry judgment 13 2d 249, 372 P.2d 3. We granted certiorari, 371 946, 83 501, 9 496, consider whether erred its action. 2 From evidence adduced trial could have concluded that: Petitioner was required work from about 5 p.m. a.m. temperatures ranging 10 Fahrenheit minus Fahrenheit, inches snow, with 'the wind a-blowing pretty hard,' repair damaged railroad track; dressed less warmly than other members crew, foreman knew this; only source heat (outside cab truck which had transported crew worksite) fire built single tie, did not give 'very much' heat; midnight, petitioner, while handling cold wrench, noticed that 'two (of his) fingers were clamped shut (he) pull them apart * before get (his) glove off'; he also 'kind burning, tingling sensation' these fingers; although communicated some or all foreman, permitted continue working on track three one-half hours; spent hour heated truck; r sult exposure, suffered frostbite lost two fingers. 3 There can be little dispute facts, if believed, establish negligence since they show who full control over petitioner's activities job, take necessary reasonable precautions prevent when put notice his condition. Lavender v. Kurn, 327 645, 66 740, 90 L.Ed. 916; Boston M.R. Co. Meech, Cir., 156 F.2d 109, cert. denied, 329 763, 67 124, 91 658. 4 It is true there conflict version what occurred. For example, testified immediately after complaint transferred where stayed until end whereas hours outside. reasonably own sole cause injury. But FELA cases has repeatedly held 'there an evidentiary basis jury's verdict, free discard disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent conclusion.' supra, U.S., 653, S.Ct., 744, 916. 'Only complete absence probative support conclusion reached (by jury) does reversible error appear.' Ibid. Once it shown 'employer played any part, even slightest, producing injury,' Rogers Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 500, 506, 77 443, 448, 493, employee may upset negligence, no matter how substantial been, may, course, into account, here, arriving final verdict. In case, evidence, though vigorously disputed, sufficient contributed Hence, appellate court's function (was) exhausted,' 916, properly substitute decide, 'it seems quite inescapable (petitioner's) conduct resulted regrettable injury.' 2d, 255, P.2d, 7. 6 reversed remanded further proceedings opinion. so ordered. 7 Reversed remanded. 8 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, whom HARLAN concurs, dissenting. cited reverse familiar ones involve duty employer provide safe place work. 651—653, 743—744, 111—112. That issue covered instructions present case.* I read record 'a work.' case each workman furnished clothes. If custom furnish gloves clothes employees if, collective bargaining agreement, become do been issued faulty garments, we would different case. failure certain kinds equipment tantamount him See, e.g., Williams Atlantic Coast Line 190 744; Young Clinchfield 288 499; Ferrara 338 M ss. 323, 155 N.E.2d 416. such tendered here. weather bitter, emergency job repairing rail done outdoors. protection against outdoors fire. nothing suggest barred using either, pressures remain away cab, disciplinary measures used those took frequent recesses keep warm. Rather, admitted men generally turns best judge should warm himself. Knowledge relevant coupled foreman's insistence perform labor attire suitable. That, too, strongest possible says, 'permitted' fingers, knowledge became very cold. unless employers insurers industrial accidents, society everyone presumed enough sense 'to out rain.' 12 HARLAN, believe taken review now dissent reversal Court, reasons already expressed past type. See 559, 459, 493; Webb Illinois Central 512, 451, 503; Ferguson Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 521, 457, 511, 515; Arnold Panhandle S.F.R. 353 360, 361, 840, 841, 889; Harris Pennsylvania 361 15, 25, 80 22, 28, 1; Davis Virginian 354, 358, 387, 289, 366; Michalic Cleveland Tankers, 364 325, 332, 81 6, 11, 12, 20; Gallick Baltimore Ohio 108, 122, 659, 668, 618; Basham 699, 701, 965, 967, 80. 14 instance precisely informed Court's opinion wherein negligent. means requiting unfortunate accidents sort found destroying supervisory power courts verdicts unsupported fault, but legislative expansion concepts workmen's compensation laws, dependent upon showing Cf. supra. 'It company exercise care furnishing require absolute elimination danger, dangers remove guard against. 'In connection, you instructed find preponderance failed subjected plaintiff unreasonable exposure harm conditions, then defendant failing discharge hereinabove set forth; any, whole proximately caused sustain injuries, return favor assess accordance instructions'.

Category: 7