Document: 361 U.S. 138 80 S.Ct. 242 4 L.Ed.2d 198 Carl C. INMAN, Petitioner,v.BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. No. 36. Argued Nov. 12, 1959. Decided Dec. 14, Mr. Raymond J. McGowan, Akron, Ohio, for petitioner. William A. Kelly, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner brought this action under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 45 U.S.C. § 51, U.S.C.A. personal injuries sustained in course his employment. some seven years had been a railroad crossing watchman respondent at 'Bettes Corners' Ohio. He filed suit claiming damages an injury he received when intoxicated automobile driver ran into him one midnight while was on duty flagging traffic passing train. Bettes Corners is heavily traveled vehicular intersection where Tallmadge Avenue, running east and west, intersected by Home which runs northeast southwest. Three sets tracks cut diagonally across northwest-southeast direction. The automobile, heading turning left Avenue accident occurred. claims that 'was negligent failing to use ordinary care provide * reasonable safe place work' crossing. says duties—including traffic, maintenance lookout other trains, reporting hotboxes ones—required face train created likelihood being struck automobiles intersection. 2 evidence manifold duties petitioner clear. exposure includes layout Corners, it, required perform. hazardous performing assigned him. In support this, points answer witness as car This stated that, 'like lot them I seen there, jumping gun' crossing, car, seeing tail light approaching, drove around line cars street adjacent and, onto street, hit petitioner, who standing near traffic. There no claim dark or regular warning, lights, bells, etc., were not properly working time. Nor it disputed waving lighted lantern each hand. Likewise condition controversy, nor fact passed through stop sign immediately before hitting violated local safety measures designed protect persons from 3 trial court submitted issue negligence jury, found 'in part' because failed afford 'enough protection.' Judgment entered verdict $25,000. Court Appeals Ohio reversed, finding 'there complete failure proof establish negligence.' It said 'reasonably foreseeable' 'would be injured actions drunken driver, violating five statutes *.' 108 App. 124, 161 N.E.2d 60, 66. After Supreme dismissed appeal, 168 St. 335, 154 442, we granted certiorari, 359 958, 79 798, 765. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 1957, 352 500, 506 507, 77 443, 448, 493, laid down rule 'judicial appraisal proofs determine whether jury question presented narrowly limited single inquiry whether, with reason, conclusion may drawn employer played any part all death.' measuring Ohio's disposition case here yardstick, must affirm. Act does make insurer. Here years, these same like circumstances three identical shift. No accidents occurred during long period. background, believe so thin judicial appraisal, could have petitioner's injury. 5 contention witness' remark, gun,' testimony occurrences similar involved. burden proving unsafe work depended type showing hazards complaint railroad, there record. making tenuous proof, held sufficient. 'no prior kind consideration' Indeed, unless 11 words can reason sufficient, none. Under such circumstances, they are too slender reed us say decision erroneous. 6 We therefore conclude, considerations, judgment affirmed. 7 Affirmed. 8 FRANKFURTER. 9 my Brother demonstrates, insofar demonstration possible law, should never here. accordance views expressed 524, 459, since persisted, appropriate would dismissal writ certiorari improvidently granted. If enforced special case, affirmance equally divided result. Thereby cast limbo unexplained adjudications, lower courts, well profession, deprived knowing litigation basis our it. Since registered conviction what proper undue compromise principle me join CLARK'S order opinion. 10 WHITTAKER, concurring. heartily Court's But derive pleasure implying, contrary Brothers minority, want 'reasonable men' differ about for, very least, regard dissent men. 12 Notwithstanding seems facts crystal clear lacks whit fully comporting standards mythical man,' Appeals, simply cannot see substantial evidence—or even scintilla iota evidence—of caused, directly contributed degree cause, unfortunate 13 Reduced substance, simple flagman, well-lighted alongside nighttime swinging red hand, struck, knocked run over driver. What, ask, did do omit caused cause casualty? How prevented enough About only way, perceive, its flagman against lawless conduct third military tanks sure stay within moving crossing-intersections performance their duties—and am method, though ironclad, certain protection persons, someone might shoot him, act different, me, driver's insists, four members agree, permitted require pay damages. thought square known concept 'negligence' beyond me. 14 DOUGLAS, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 15 Petitioner, stationed respondent's intersection, seriously driven person behind interrogatory providing 16 Avenues. west; Home, tracks, northwest southeast, extend two streets, trains move parallel opposite directions often 17 approach following character: (1) supposed flag highway stop, using lanterns whistle provided purpose. (2) second pass time another, look clearing (3) signal conductor if discovered any. (4) going east, stand west side better coming west. 18 On night eastbound approaching. Accordingly, himself few feet blowing first toward then Then facing back 19 Although intersect Avenues those streets cross, north turn passing. is, however, Home; rightfully halted Nevertheless came made squealing Tallmadge, injuring 20 caboose just crossing; block stood; another direction adjoining track due reach moment looking headlight; remained obliged performed duties; (5) heavy both streets; (6) occasions 'jumped 21 restricted stopping passed, record (unlike Cahill New York, N.H. H.R. 351 183, 76 758, 100 L.Ed. 1075)1 part. Petitioner's much broader, indicated. Yet holds chosen several reasonably including volume Plainly remove possibilities employees make, cost, one's living room. particular hazard sufficient weight induce guard danger removed diminished available matters determine. find assignment else installation mechanical devices undertaken circumstances. argument men foreseen reckless motorist took every precaution reasonableness required. 22 nature congested cutting corners multiple hour night, view busy furnishing work, Act. Bailey Central Vermont 319 350, 63 1062, 87 1444. close division reinforces conclusion. 23 why actor insulated consequences merely party's criminal immediate contrary, unanimously employee lies intentional parties determinative. foreseeable, provisions events. Lillie Thompson, 332 68 140, 92 73. instructions point seem adequate.2 appears great stress lack worked automobile. certainly effort conditioned upon employee's killed. Moreover, liability attaches negligence. Such command repeatedly applied. See 506—507, 448—449, 493; supra. 24 Though think error, happy full attention important law—whether guaranteed Seventh Amendment integral remedy Congress has honored courts. FRANKFURTER out, below deprive precedential value, fields. Furthermore, withdrawal merits after impairs integrity practice allowing vote Justices bring up certiorari.3 Participation whole least cases (cf. Reynolds Atlantic Coast Line 336 207, 209, 69 508, 93 618) partial pledge Congress. For Cir., 224 F.2d 637. 'After happened usually easy how avoided but matter judged occurrence. always prudent anticipated exercise care. Where apprehended, something minds exist. However, expectation carries realization given set suggestive danger, take constitutes legislative history Harris Pennsylvania p. 18, 22, note (concurring opinion).

Category: 7