Document: 374 U.S. 1 83 S.Ct. 1667 10 L.Ed.2d 709 Michael SHENKER, Petitioner,v.The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY. No. 414. Argued April 17, 1963. Decided June 10, Charles Alan Wright, Austin, Tex., for petitioner. Alexander H. Hadden, Cleveland, Ohio, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. The petitioner brought an action under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51—60, in District Court Western Pennsylvania to recover injuries caused by alleged negligence respondent Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (B&O) and Pittsburgh Lake Erie (P E). At close evidence, directed a verdict favor P E on ground that evidence failed establish was employee company as required § Act (45 51). case against B&O, however, submitted jury which returned $40,000 denied motion judgment n.o.v. entered found jury. On appeal, Third Circuit Appeals, one judge dissenting, reversed, holding part B&O. 303 F.2d 596. A rehearing en banc denied. We granted certiorari, 371 908, 255, 9 169. 2 employed B&O at its Mahoningtown station New Castle, Pennsylvania. railroad complex consisted four sets tracks, two owned operated E. B& O side, maintained facilities. Although station, it kept no employees, all necessary services stations being provided employees. ticket agent issued tickets trains. janitor work both assisted loading unloading mail cars trains railroads. paid sole supervision agent. 3 date accident, October 15, 1956, handled train scheduled depart 12:25 a.m. loaded 20 25 bags wagon station. He crossed tracks platform and, when pulled up, alongside car door. this occasion, spite efforts baggageman, Beck, sliding door would not open more than 18 or inches. According petitioner, Beck commented he had reported defective yet fix they have get off best could. standing wagon, difficulty throwing smaller restricted opening. larger ones, weighing from 80 100 pounds, 'to twist around,' keep pushing forcing them' them In process unusual exertion, felt something snap his back. injury immediately Treatment eventually removal ruptured intervertebral disc resulted petitioner's permanent disability. basis 4 Before considering merits decision below, raises procedural point, claiming Appeals violation rights 28 46(c). time filed there were eight active judges serving Circuit. Four voted grant rehearing, deny, abstained. claims banc, statute requires only majority those present. absolute members court. Section 46(c) provides: 5 'Cases controversies shall be heard determined court division three judges, unless hearing before is ordered circuit who are service. consist circuit.' 6 occasion consider section length Pac. R. Corp. v. Co., 345 247, 73 656, 97 L.Ed. 986. It said: 7 'In our view, addressed litigants. Appeals. power. vests power order hearings banc. goes further. neither forbids nor each member entertain petition left free devise own administrative machinery provide means whereby may such hearing.' U.S., 250, S.Ct., 658. 8 went say litigant go further right know will followed suggest procedure set case. practice has been fully revealed Judge Maris Hearing And Rehearing Cases Banc, 14 F.R.D. 91, referred with approval United States American-Foreign S.S. Corp., 363 685, 688, n. 5, 1336, 1338, 1491. every court, enter formal vote petition. Such clearly within scope court's discretion we spoke Pacific. For hold otherwise involve unnecessarily internal administration Courts Turning merits, can question F.E.L.A. suggests meaning common law loaned-servant doctrine, Standard Oil Co. Anderson, 212 215, 29 252, 53 480; Linstead Chesapeake 276 28, 32—34, 48 241, 242—243, 72 453, record support conclusion. describing Anderson stated nominal employer furnishes third party 'with men do work, places exclusive control performance it, (then) become pro hac vice servants him whom furnished.' 221, 254. concluded doctrine immediate critical determining performing services. present case, undisputed facts show times employees.1 intimations might given directions baggageman most example minimum cooperation carry out coordinated undertaking, noted cannot amount supervision. 226, 256. whole tenor provides speaks agreement manage operate Mahoningtown. even therefore need extent applies cases See supra; compare Sinkler Missouri 356 326, 329—330, 78 758, 761—762, 799. remaining issue negligence, if any, trial instructed 11 '* * duty exercise ordinary prudence, caution care inspect furnish employees equipped reasonably safe doors, though another railroad. failure so providing foresee injured connection equipment safe.' 12 No exception taken charge. denying B&O's n.o.v., relied series appeals decisions broad proposition nondelegable place onto premises over control. Kooker Cir., 258 876; Chicago Great Casura, 234 441; Beattie Elgin, J. E.R. 217 863. These accord opinions Bailey Central Vermont 319 350, 63 1062, 87 1444; Ellis Union 329 649, 67 598, 91 572; Harris 361 22, 1, reversing 168 St. 582, 156 N.E.2d 822. argued us these same safe-place-to-work doctrine. admits general statements cases. bases defense solely because just into did sufficient opportunity obtain actual constructice notice relies lower where defect arose minutes hours insufficient matter held notice. Kaminski River Indiana 200 1; Wetherbee 191 302, subsequent appeal 204 755, cert. denied, 346 867, 74 104, 98 378. 13 Whatever validity last cases, relevance here. permitting them. standard applicable use belonging foreign settled long accident Potomac Mackey, 157 72, 15 491, 39 624, killed brake freight hauled Potomac, but Relying language earlier York decision, Gottlieb York, L.E. W.R. N.Y. 462, 467, N.E. 344, 345, bound cars. owes inspection master *. When come defects visible discoverable inspection, must either remedy refuse take cars,—so much, least, due employe s.' p. 90, 497. look far 'second reason public policy' behind principle. 16 'It unreasonable cruel declare, that, while faithful workman compensation arrangement cars, without redress damaged occasioned happened belong company.' 89, 496. 17 This reaffirmed extended short later Texas Archibald, 170 665, 777, 42 1188. Pacific accepted Cotton Belt Railway cottonseed oil mill spur track. switching, seriously coupling car. attempted distinguish apply rather hauling line dismissed argument summarily: 'The wants foundation reason, unsupported any authority,—in because, reasonable diligence appliances ever present, entire business, beyond attempt purely arbitrary distinction particular business operation rule, thereby exempt separated, obligation observe precautions good condition.' 670, 779.2 19 generally, Annotation, 41 L.R.A. 101. rules adopted unavoidably E, taking whatsoever protect possible liable should appear As makes abundantly clear, de minimis rule called play account brevity sojourn since irrelevant owed working Nor answer claim lacked arguments never supported employer's supra, 447 235 F.2d; 865 Terminal Ass'n Louis Fitzjohn, 165 473, 476—477, A.L.R.2d 290, greater here respect see adequately itself refusing permit service Since instructions reflect holdings uncontested, affirmed. recovery law, also construction itself. 330, 762, 799: 'it conception legislation unitary enterprise, economic resources obligated bear burden befalling engaged enterprise arising fault other endeavor.' If railroads, simple expedient doing other's could tie their up legal technicalities proper sue perhaps remove coverage significant area activity. subject once stricter standards debilitating doctrines assumption risk. Cf. 673, 21 instructions, returned. 22 Reversed. 23 GOLDBERG, HARLAN STEWART join, dissenting. 24 With deference, I respectfully dissent. dealing situation disregarded require correction simply sustain liability substantial abandoned below. Any hiatus protection exists inadequacies evidence. Normally, defendant's create hazardous condition, constructive defendant injury-producing prerequisite therefore, liability. See, e.g., Sano 282 935, 936, 938; Dobson Grand Trunk 248 545, 548; Atlantic Coast Line Collins, 805, 808, 352 942, 77 265, 238; 4. Ringhiser O.R. 354 901, 1093, 1268; E.R Thus, introduce tending knew, known, door, below sustained.1 26 seeks avoid application ordinarily controlling principles invoking several decided prior enactment F.E.L.A., which, holds, discharge furnishing (the petitioner) work,' 352, 1064, 1444,2 allowed Even accepting, arguendo, applicability principle imposing result reached does follow. exist, sure, conduct reasonable, nonnegligent inspections, accrue breach responsibility damages occurring negligent nonperformance duty. meaningful sense, then, imposition specific concept knowledge, implicit chargeable knowledge known. Here, mean inspected P&LE shown. 27 Court, says merely having inspect, apparently injury. find reasoning unconvincing. While declares regard inspection. Moreover, inference supportable, assuming, result, would, fact, disclosed claim. exist mere existence liability; shown procedures defect.3 Evidence liability-producing factor introduced devoid existed injury,4 whether, extremely careful procedure, discovered Under rationale first appeared sought scrupulous kind avoided detected. What appears done discovery defects; short, made insurer condition equipment, whether others, upon work. wholly salutary industrial incorporated workmen's statutes, created employing my view policy, course employment, entitled prompt adequate regardless traditional common-law limiting recovery. But Congress elected different test until changed, courts apply. testimony stands record: 'Q. (By Court) Did boss night? 'A. No, sir, didn't connected there. whose Shenker? agent, Boyd. turn got hurt? During months you worked there, give orders plaintiff? sir. From receive direction orders, instructions? me Boyd let what wanted tell Shenker. exclusively employees? Yes, sir.' himself becomes aware continues defect. based belief assumes risk handling known defective. pp. 672—673, 779—780. exception, course, longer relevant expressly eliminates employer. place, raise contributory mitigation damages, raised properly charged. argue contrary, 7, ante, understand today directly declaring very cited indicate thereto. Instead, ignores statutory setting imposes, reasons infra, erroneous violates clear governing statute. This, apparent 8, operative 'principle expose dangers admitted train.' 497 (emphasis supplied). second here, 8—9, somewhat facts, again 'discoverable inspection.' 672, 779, 1188 nature timing inspection—but probably not, declares, itself—presumably depend, function reasonableness, number factors, including duration available manner received. 'foreign' possession named imposed. statement attributed shed light continued exist. report well shortly injured.

Category: 7