Document: 352 U.S. 512 77 S.Ct. 451 1 L.Ed.2d 503 John W. WEBB, Petitioner,v.ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. No. 42. Argued Dec. 3, 1956. Decided Feb. 25, 1957. Mr. Robert J. Rafferty, Chicago, Ill., for the petitioner. Herbert Deany, respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion of Court. This is an action under Federal Employers' Liability Act,1 in which certiorari was granted to consider whether Court Appeals Seventh Circuit erred reversing a judgment damages awarded petitioner District Northern Illinois.2 The ground reversal that evidence insufficient allow jury determination respondent's alleged negligence, so motion directed verdict should have been granted.3 2 petitioner, working as brakeman on July 12, 1952, injured his kneecap fall cinder roadbed at point some 15 feet from house track switch Mount Olive, Illinois. He alongside connecting and slipped unnoticed partially covered 'about size (his) fist' embedded level but soft roadbed. 3 It conceded clinker created hazardous condition giving rise liability Act if proofs raised question negligence causing or permitting be there. viewed raise because did not adduce showing what standard procedures were followed prevent large clinkers being used road ballast inspecting roadbeds hazards firm footing. We do think petitioner's lacking such even we assume, question, he had burden. On contrary, there probative facts justify with reason finding alleged. 4 '(I)n passing upon sufficient submit issue need look only reasonable inferences tend support case litigant against whom peremptory instruction has given.'4 could found that, weeks before mishap, respondent elevated tracks 5 inches, using cubic yards chat ballast. Petitioner testified without objection, based knowledge experience gleaned 27 years railroading, railroad's custom practice take precautions presence railroad bed, both 'it doesn't give good footing; it cannot tamped ties support.' Moreover, supplied additional facts. section foreman charge repair work screen merely visually inspected shoveled by four laborers onto 'the pushcart' taken site. His testimony largest saw would 'say two inches diameter. * Of course, I no way knowing exactly, about.' In this posture proofs, ample determine procedure satisfied expected prudent man light hazard prevented. also presented bearing adequacy inspection practices discover As might find work, find, fact three weeks, properly made. There discovered either semiweekly inspections location, made part remove workmen, inspector supervisor making less frequent inspections. weigh decide duty provide safe place work. 6 said: 'That defendant placed its operation one several possibilities present. A can rest nothing speculation.'5 connection mentioned other possible sources clinker. One L. & N. Railroad, whose main line immediately adjoined connected cross-over track. Another stranger may brought unfenced right-of-way. That not, our conclusion supports negligently caused failed use proper care it.6 Indeed, reasonably came another source. 7 Although presents causation, quoted language read holding 'in whole part' injury, then said Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 500, 443, 448, decided today, pertinent: 8 '* But mean actions statute, although employee's favor, unless judge say exclude idea injury due causes connected, or, stated way, are strong jury, grounds probability, favorable defendant. governing principle defining proof requires submission these cases. 9 'Under statute test simply employer played any part, slightest, producing death sought. does matter evidence, reason, attribute result causes, including contributory negligence. Judicial appraisal narrowly limited single inquiry whether, drawn all death. Judges fix their sights primarily make and, met, bound out allows choice probabilities.' considered remaining questions, passed Appeals, them unsubstantial. Accordingly, remand proceedings conformity opinion. 10 reversed. 11 Reversed. 12 BURTON concurs result. 13 REED affirm Appeals. 14 For dissenting opinions Mr FRANKFURTER, HARLAN, see 518, 459. 35 Stat. 65, amended, 36 291, 53 1404, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., U.S.C.A. seq. 351 905, 76 697, 100 L.Ed. 1441. 228 F.2d 257. Wilkerson McCarthy, 336 53, 57, 69 413, 415, 93 497. page 259. Some speculation entered into jury's decision. However, stated: 'It answer involved conjecture. Whenever dispute fair-minded men draw different inferences, measure conjecture required those settle choosing seems most inference.' Lavender Kurn, 327 645, 653, 66 740, 744, 90 916.

Category: 7