Opinion ID: 2551157
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Custom Implicates Assumption of Risk

Text: The Court of Special Appeals concluded, it is clear that the evidence adduced does not show that the Decedent impliedly consented to `perform[ ] a task in the manner which [Amtrak] directed.' Collins, 187 Md.App. at 313, 978 A.2d at 833 (quoting Fashauer, 57 F.3d at 1279-80). In our view, it is not clear that the evidence only permitted one inference, which in the intermediate appellate court's opinion, would be the inference that Decedent acted under a `general' order implicating only contributory negligence and not assumption of the risk. The jury may have reasonably inferred that the custom of tying-down the pantograph amounted to or derived from the existence of a direct order. In either case, it was a determination properly made by the jury and requiring full disclosure of the difference between contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. Although neither party produced evidence of an explicit order to mount the Cat Car and tie down the pantograph, that was precisely what was customarily done when an alignment job was completed. Tying down the pantograph was the universally understood custom among members of the D-126 crew and it was known to Amtrak officials who did not definitively stop the practice. At trial, Amtrak's attorney asked Gerard Nangle: Did anyone that night, just so we are clear and the jurors, did you have any information that any crew membereither foreman, Mr. Boone, operator, Mr. Breader, or Mr. Backer, who I think maybe was not there at the time, he was doing other thingsdo you have any information that any crew member ordered Mr. Collins to go up top and somehow get close to the pantograph, for any reason? Mr. Nangle answered, No, no one, to our knowledge, gave instruction for him to go up. Thomas Boone, the crew foreman, however, offered contradictory testimony that there was a general instruction to always tie down the pantograph. [COLLINS'S COUNSEL]: You were told by Mr. Fora, the Assistant Division Engineer, to tie down the pantograph even though it completely was without any history of failure, correct? Mr. Boone: Correct. [COLLINS'S COUNSEL]: Had you ever seen anything in writing about the tying-down of the pantograph? Mr. Boone: (No audible response.) [COLLINS'S COUNSEL]: Had you ever been given any detailed instructions about tying-down the pantograph? Mr. Boone: Just to tie them down. [COLLINS'S COUNSEL]: And that was direction from Mr. Foura to tie it down under all circumstances, correct? Mr. Boone: Correct. Further, Mr. Boone testified that he did not know whether the rule applied when the wires were energized or de-energized. Later at trial, Walter Foura, a Senior Project Officer in the Mid-Atlantic Division testified that he verbally communicated to foremen and supervisors to pass down to their subordinates the rule that the pantograph was to be tied down, but only under a de-energized line. In response to a question about why none of Amtrak's ground crews seemed to know about this caveat to the rule, that it be tied down under de-energized lines, Mr. Foura said that it was the responsibility of the foreman and supervisors to disseminate the information. Then, Mr. Foura testified about a 2004 memo written by upper level management explicitly stating that the pantograph was never to be tied down under any circumstance. Evidence was also adduced at trial that the crews tied down the pantograph routinely because a latch on the Cat Car which should have functioned to keep the pantograph secured to the roof of the vehicle did not function at the time of Decedent's fatal injury, and had never functioned properly. Thus, the evidence on this subject was contradictory. It is conceivable, in light of this evidence, that the jury may have inferred that Collins was following his employer's direction that the pantograph should be tied down at the end of an alignment reading job in accordance with his understanding of his position on the crew and the customary procedure. This inference would invoke the direct order that, under Fashauer, warrants a cautionary instruction. This evidence about the tie down procedure, along with evidence of the safety meeting prior to the job and the investigative report finding that the Decedent acted without orders to mount the roof and approach live wire, directs attention to Decedent's knowledge, choice, and awareness of risk. The jury may have dismissed Amtrak's characterization and testimony about the custom and rules relating to tying-down the pantograph. Because we cannot know whether the jury properly considered only those aspects of the evidence relative to carelessness, we cannot be confident that the verdict reflects the jury's conclusion that the sole cause of the Decedent's injury was his own carelessness or that it was his assumption of the risk. See Jenkins, 22 F.3d 206, 211-12 (9th Cir.1994) (noting the assumption of the risk instruction is warranted if the evidence can prove either contributory negligence or assumption of the risk). Hamrock v. Consol. Rail Corp., 151 Ill. App.3d 55, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d 1274 (1986) illustrates how an appellate court in Illinois resolved a case where it was unclear if the employee was acting under direct or general orders. In Hamrock, the conductor informed Hamrock's crew about the movements that would need to be made to align the train cars in the desired configuration, and each member was to decide how to execute his part of the job. Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1276. The court said: Because there was support in the record for plaintiff's theory that he merely performed a dangerous job under orders and in the customary manner without safe alternatives available to him, there was evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that plaintiff assumed the risk and a cautionary instruction should have been given. Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1280. In Hamrock, the court determined defendant's attempt to show that the sole cause of plaintiff's injury was his own carelessness by emphasizing plaintiff's years as a brakeman, his familiarity with the coupling maneuver, and his knowledge of the condition of the yard underscore[d] the need for a cautionary instruction .... Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1280. Amtrak presented a similar case hereevidence was adduced regarding Collins's training, knowledge of the procedures, and awareness of the dangerousness of working under energized lines. The case is instructive because Mr. Hamrock, like Mr. Collins, was familiar with the railroad's safety rules but stated that he and other train men customarily rode moving cars and manipulated the angle cock with their feet. Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1276 (emphasis added). This practice, like tying-down the pantographs, was not in accordance with the formal rules set by the employer. The court in Hamrock also stated that just because an employee violates a safety rule, that does not establish that the employee was the sole cause of his injuries particularly in light of evidence that the rules were seldom utilized or were nullified by custom. Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1280. Because the jury could have made the inference that Collins was on the roof of the Cat Car, to do what he understood his job to be, even under dangerous conditions, the cautionary instruction about assumption of the risk should have been given.