Document: 336 U.S. 53 69 S.Ct. 413 93 L.Ed. 497 WILKERSONv.McCARTHY et al. No. 53. Argued Dec. 6, 1948. Decided Jan. 31, 1949. Rehearing Denied March 28, See 940, 744. Parnell Black, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioner. Dennis McCarthy, respondents. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 The petitioner, a railroad switchman, was injured while performing duties as an employee respondents in their coach yard at Denver, Colorado. He brought this action damages under Federal Employers' Liability Act.1 2 complaint alleged that performance his it became necessary him to walk over wheel-pit on narrow boardway, and due negligence respondents, petitioner fell into pit suffered grievous personal injuries. further had failed furnish safe place work several detailed particulars, namely, boardway (1) not firmly set, (2) securely attached, (3) although only about 20 inches wide, been permitted become greasy, oily, slippery, thereby causing lose balance, slip, fall pit. 3 answer admitted existence petitioner's injuries result falling it. They denied, however, injury resulted from railroad's negligence, charging plaintiff's own sole proximate cause On motion trial judge directed jury return verdict its favor. Supreme Court Utah affirmed, one dissenting. 187 P.2d 188. 4 strongly indicated, dissenting pointed out, finding absence part rested court's independent resolution conflicting testimony. This has previously held many cases where trials are required, courts must submit issues if evidence might justify either way those issues. See, e.g., Lavender v. Kurn, 327 645, 652, 653, 66 740, 743, 744, 90 916; Bailey Central Vermont Ry., 319 350, 354, 63 1062, 1064, 1065, 87 1444; Tiller Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 318 54, 68, 444, 451, 452, 610, 143 A.L.R. 967; see Brady Southern 320 476, 479, 64 232, 234, 88 239. It because importance preserving litigants FELA right we granted certiorari case. 5 showed following facts without dispute: 6 Petitioner July 26, 1945. pit, constructed 1942, ran approximately forth feet east west underneath three or more parallel tracks which crossed north south. 11 deep 1/2 with cement walls floor. Car wheels need repair were lowered it, there repaired, then lifted use. When use kept solidly covered heavy boards. These boards used walkway by all employees. cover removed except 75 pound 'permanent board' 22 wide long. While solid covering off, board,' built fit snugly firmly, unquestionably employees up Mav 1, 7 latter date, put 'safety chains' fastened guard posts, inclosing 16 north, south sides. 42 high, fitted tubes imbedded ground, being larger than posts—enough allow posts freely. chains, attached two top ere be taken down when plaintiff slipped At time tourist car standing track '23 1/2.' 1/2' chain rail 36 inches, overhand supporting posts.2 floor 'overhang' 51 above 9 thus allowing unobstructed clearance overhand. inside enclosure, board's side eastern posts. Despite proximity sufficient space each post so workers access board walkway. One defendant's witnesses, very large man weighing 250 pounds, passed through though according testimony, 'very bad discomfort.' much smaller man, 145 passing between these reached bridged Oil would sometimes accumulate bottom stated 'almost certain greasy oily' pit-men. 8 Neither before nor after chains up, ever forbidden any other across board.' written rules spoken instructions board. And witnesses both sides testified supposed to, did, continue installed. nevertheless erection enclosure itself equivalent company orders no should permanent up. also concluded insufficient authorize generally, well workers, continued long open practice crossing injured. is established rule upon whether issue look reasonable inferences tend support case litigant against whom peremptory instruction given. Viewing here show following: Switchmen employees, just they before. Petitioner3 another witness4 employed around positively such continued. true men, removing applying wheels, 'to * *.' Thus conflict alone walkway, generally left evidence, jury, court, resolve conflict. 10 inappropriate State affirmed court directing verdict. Following determination fact acted assumption 'had knowledge, actual constructive, switchmen using plank carry out tasks,' (187 196), 'no reason suspect' empl yees From this, went say 'were required keep purposes crewmen yard.' But emphasized different maintenance 'a 22-inch almost constitutes negligence.' board, grease oil, added: 'It conceded defendants knew charged knowledge workmen habitually manner claimed plaintiff, safety entirely inadequate, question have presented condition adequacy enclosure.' We agree last quoted statement since error direct favor respondent. There was, state could slightly longer route walked avoiding fact, terms Act, completely immunize liability 'in part' respondents' negligence. For failure safer method found contributory Act provides 'contributory shall bar recovery, but diminished proportion amount attributable 12 Much argument devoted proposition does make absolute insurer That correct, imposes negligent Cf. Coray Pac. 335 520, 275. juries determine employer's conduct measures what prudent person done same circumstances. hold master 'liable conditions control ought maintain circumstances', bearing mind 'the standard care commensurate dangers business.' Linc 67, 967. 13 some who think recent decisions submission questions make, 'for practical purposes, employees.' individual Judge Major, Griswold Gardner, Cir., 155 F.2d 333, 334. Kerner's dissent view page 337 Lindley's pages 337, 338. assumption, railroads made insurers inadmissible. rests unarticulated, will invariably decide railroads. contrary shown illustration Employers cases, Barry Reading 147 129, 324 867, 65 912, 89 1422; Benton St. Louis-San Francisco Mo. Sup., 182 S.W.2d 61, 843, 676, 1405. cf. Bruner 105 399, 142 649, dismissed reasons stated, 323 673, 126, 547. Moreover, sixty years ago considering proper tribu al determining negligence: 'We reason, system law land tribunal disputed why others.' Jones East Tennessee, V. & G.R. 128 443, 445, 118, 32 478. given 'where dispute, relation them fair-minded men may draw inferences.' Washington Co. McDade, 135 554, 572, 1044, 1049, 34 235. Such appellate courts. Courts assume short fair constitutional function. In rejecting contention expected whim, Court, speaking Holmes, said: 'But assumed duty, finds proved.' Aikens Wisconsin, 195 194, 206, 25 3, 49 154. 14 reaching conclusion frequently called consider separate strands circumstances, circumstances ultimate Here arguments effort persuade negligent, counter persuaded negligent. thing guilty Many advanced not.5 relevant appropriate consideration selected pass reasons, submitted affirm taking jury. 15 urged addition specifically out. contentions now, arise judgment reversed remanded inconsistent opinion. ordered. 17 Reversed remanded. 18 FRANKFURTER, concurring. 19 Trial guaranteed Constitution United States presupposes guidance disinterested competent judge. Herron Pacific 283 91, 383, 857. important element puts exacting duty jury's fairly based. claims he negligence—want discharge defendant owed him—it judge's function entirety rationally assuming took, entitled take, most favorable plaintiff. If bright line dividing non-negligence, problem. Only incompetent wilful take degree, often nice differences judges competence conscience past, future, disagree proof demand third thinks enough leave indicate unmindful easy timid tried determination, doing fails warrant A judge, like biased intrinsically lawless observations especially pertinent suits Act. difficulties derive largely outmoded concept 'negligence' working principle adjustments inevitable technological modern industry. cruel wasteful mode dealing industrial displaced industry insurance underlies workmen's compensation laws. hardly reflect regard interests remains basis them. is, course, enforce however unjust operation be. rather lead opinions 'fault' 'proximate cause.' reports full unedifying views, too seek conscientiously perform neither leaving everything nor, hand, turning law. 21 Considering volume complexity obviously call decision thought disposition demands, I do hink merely review already canvassed even erroneously appraised. division seem demonstrate beyond peradventure nothing involved drawing allowable necessarily unique set turns appraisal hardship fallible application archaic touch our private sympathy, deny considerations led ask Congress give power Court's docket. carries responsibility granting adjudication federal system; outcome parties enough. dismiss writ exposed want revealed particular facts.1 believe adhere present adhering cannot seen perspective single mounting burden business, thirtieth occasion petition during past decade denying recovery solely behalf carrier period dismissed, rightly, improvidently granted. McCarthy Bruner, 322 718, 1047, 1558; Nor Reports disclose regarding petitions tell whole story exercise discretion adherence, whole, wise publicly recording vote Justices. Of light situation derivatively shed disclosed position Justices merits cases. unavailable data are, can readily imagined, recurring problem statute. 23 would, therefore, having Since, done, obliged recanvass record likewise go 24 BURTON, concurred opinion, joins DOUGLAS, 26 join account stewardship group 27 designed cost legs, eyes, arms, lives consumed operations. Not costs imposed, did mak employer insurer. imposed created numerous defenses—fellow-servant rule, risk, negligence—so effectively insulated responsible unsafe work. purpose change strict liability, lift 'prodigious burden' placed them, relieve 'who exigencies necessities life bound labor' risks hazards avoided lessened 'by providing machinery equipment work.'1 28 friendly reception first place, great maze restrictive interpretations engrafted constructions deprived beneficiaries intended benefits legislation. Seaboard Air Ry. Horton, 233 492, 635, 58 L.R.A.1915C, Ann.Cas. 1915B, 475; Toledo, L. W.R. Allen, 276 165, 48 215, 72 513; 62-67, 448-451, second doubtful resolved employer. overturning verdicts rendered Chicago, M. P.R. Coogan, 271 472, 46 564, 70 1041; Missouri Aeby, 275 426, 177, 351; New York Ambrose, 280 486, 50 198, 74 562. goodly portion relief provided withheld 29 obstacles Congress. 1939 indeed move release risk reimposed Stat. 1404, 45 U.S.C. § U.S.C.A. 54; supra. evil susceptible Congressional correction bottomed Since effective Congress, fitting correct let administration governed aim legislation safeguard hostile philosophy permeated interpretation. 30 Judges always establish agreement coming 1943 Term date2 Appendix shows, think, faithful design prevailed. 31 55 filed period, instance employer, employee. lower setting aside f om sustained received entitled. unanimous merits. 35 employers claiming erroneous new remaining trial. 33 made: shifted liability. criterion governing loses below proven respected. historic role function, 478; 1050, 235; supra, restored class 37 MURPHY RUTLEDGE 38 APPENDIX. I. Cases granted: 39 A. Where took reversed: Tennant Peoria P.U.R. 321 29, 409, 520; 574, 421, 465; Blair Baltimore O.R. 600, 545, 490; Keeton Thompson, 326 689, 135, 405; Cogswell Chicago E.I.R. 328 820, 1122, 1601; Jesionowski Boston M.R. 329 67 401, 91 416, 169 947; Ellis Union 598, 572; Pauly 330 802, 962, 1261; Myers 331 477, 1334, 1615, Safety Appliance 11; Lillie 332 459, 68 140; Anderson Atchison, T. S.F.R. 333 821, 854; Eubanks 334 854, 1528; Penn. N.W.R. 849, 79; 275; Wilkerson 53, 413. 40 B. sustained: 239; Hunter Texas Electric 827, 203; Eckenrode Pennsylvania 329, 91. 41 C. upheld II. denied: employer: Beamer Virginian 763, 1060; Cowdrick 799, 555, 637; Negro 862, 1419; Fantini 325 856, 1185, 1976; Scarborough 755, 93, 453; Chisholm 807, 502, 688; Waller Northern P. Terminal 742, 45, 640; Wolfe Henwood, 773, 88; Las gna McCarty, 829, 205; Trust Erie 845, 1513. 43 1405; Benson Missouri-Kansas-Texas 830, 206. 44 trial: Owens 57, 593. D. employee's gone jury: Jester, 716, 44, 576; Thompson Godsby, 719, 48, 579; Bimberg, 752, 87, 602; Ass'n Louis Copeland, Waddell, 732, 69, 587; Cabana, 873, 1414, 1991; Riley, Mooney, 723, 428; Schorb, 786, 470, 477; O. Howard, 1377, 1637; Gardner Griswold, 725, 74, 628; Henwood Chaney, 760, 113, 655; Meech, 124, 658; Wheeling L.E.R. Keith, 67; Delaware, Lackawanna Mostyn, 770, 82; Meeks, Wabash Hampton, 833, 460; Fleming Husted, 661; Unity Kurimsky, 855, 734; Skidmore, 816, 34. E. ordered 812, 693. 47 Chief VINSON, my record, inference reasonably drawn viewed sustain him. leads me conclude properly affirm. JACKSON, hearing seeing action. careful decided propositions: First, still holds order recover employer.' doubts relying statements effect requirement.1 Second, analysis, whatever principles law, therefore refusal do. now reverses and, least, espouses doctrine weighs examines usurping every claim require trial, possible Determination involves examining facts. examine impartially where, here, fact. 52 am unaware continues pay lip service based fault. fault meaning. shows wheel trying cross blocked off strung Plaintiff admits few farther After undertaking complete contortions gymnastics, particularly when, 1/2. casual examination model exhibit how difficult passage. Nevertheless, succeeded disregarding forced passage considered 'customary,' th action, doubt apply precautions consisted barricade, armed guard. question. 54 forms growing total, really accepted old body experienced, baffled confused goes here. considers reform within judicial promulgate, constantly that. comparison 188, raise, minds profession, perspicacity answer: err? amended 291 §§ 51—60, 51—60. types cars wider overhang reducing available car. bore directly follows: 'Q. ilkerson, you observed yards up? 'A. Yes, sir, have. What been, pit? Men there, regardless wanted there. Went through—you mean Over described, side. reference day installed? Walked straight Was usually over? sir. None, chains. observe number times occasions Oh, couldn't say; suppose maybe hundred times; varies, carmen others necessary, pullman, forth. Crossed common everybody way. Did see—did notice walking across? No, haven't. Ask experience difficulty onto morning? No.' Another witness chains? Well, get side, next the—in work, know, under, car, on. your stakes place? hand post, step Have similar circumstances? the—such occurrences, happen? O, saw dozens times. switchman act similarly; board? helpers placed, times, way, helpers.' later gave names qualify testimony argued 'Other routes open' exempt argument: 'In case, appears adequate crewmen, inadequate cross-walk Employees climbing approach deliberately, holds, footing, swinging hurry apt forget slippery oily incident crossing, swung himself plank.' Aside apparent greater protect themselves patently 'Had preclude walk-way, installed block ignores erected people understanding pit.' was: 'Also, sign afforded additional security warn ng, disregarded ignored form warning.' justifiable court. indicated Taft Layne Bowler Corp. Western Well Works, 261 387, 393, 422, 423, 712: 'If suggested enabled us dispose merits, consistent involving settlement public, distinguished parties, real embarrassing authority Circuit Appeals. certainly comes head.' H.R.Rep.No.1386, 60th Cong., 1st Sess. (1908). yet included. included arising Williamson, 196 824, 860, 1274, omitted construction rule. rejected 'Any character propriety idle useless ceremony sufficiency respect. converted negli ence statute making, Roberts 358, 1066, 1444. 'The commencing 967, succession (with exception hereinafter noted) Appeals Fourth Circuit, 420, District remand, again below, denied. denial Appeals, holding verdict, decision, 134 1444, defendant, 490, Lavender, Administrator, etc., Kurn al., 916, defendants. unbroken 239, North Carolina exception, little consequence four members dissented.'

Category: 7