Legal Document

372 U.S. 108 83 Supreme Court Reporter 659 9 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 618 James GALLICK, Petitioner,v.The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY. Number 76. Argued Dec. 10, 1962. Decided Feb. 18, 1963. Marshall I. Nurenberg, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner. Alexander or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Hadden, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Upon a special verdict jury, Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, entered judgment awarding damages to petitioner in this Federal Employers' Liability Act1 suit. The Appeals reversed, 173 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 382, and Ohio refused further appellate review, 172 St. 488, 178 597, making decision intermediate court final rendered by state courts. This granted certiorari, 369 848, 82 935, 8 8, consider question whether below improperly invaded jury's function. We have concluded that is erroneous must be reversed. 2 Petitioner was spotting crew foreman working on about August 1954, along respondent railroad's right way River 'flats' section Ohio. At particular stretch roadbed where afternoon, there had been many years pool stagnant water, which were dead decayed rats pigeons, portions thereof. Insects seen on, over, pool, evidence showed, as stated, long aware fetid condition pool. N.E.2d, at 383. While he temporarily near experienced bite his left leg just above knee. He grasped spot with hand felt an object under trousers seemed large insect which, when crushed it, dropped out trouser leg. wound subsequently became infected. infection failed respond medical treatment, worsened progressively until it spread throughout petitioner's body, creating pus-forming lesions eventually necessitating amputation both legs. None doctors who treated studied case could explain etiology present condition, although some them diagnosed characterized 'pyodermagangrenosa, secondary bite.' See id., 384. 3 Act makes railroads liable any employee suffering 'injury death resulting whole part from negligence * (the) carrier, reason defect insufficiency, due its negligence, other equipment.' 45 Code KF62 § 51. In complaint alleged respondent's permitting accumulate vermin attract insects, furnishing defective unsafe place work. denied contended if serious injuries resulted sustained while railroad property, such consequences 'were beyond realm reasonable probability foreseeability, result no duty arose' exercise care protect 'from risk.' 4 After lengthy trial, court, pursuant State's statute, Rev.Code, 2315.15, general submitted two dozen interrogatories jury charged what deemed applicable law negligence. extent relevant here, follows (answers italicized): 5 '10. On approximately plaintiff bitten insect? Yes. 6 '13. Did defendant B & O, provide Gallick reasonably safe work facts circumstances existing time? Jury can't decide question. 7 '14. (D)id O know accumulation said rats, bugs, would attracted area? '15. If answer 14 yes, did employees '16. Was negligent one more particulars petition? 10 '17. Question 16 indicate words petition acts omissions constitute defendant's There existed water premises possession control into accumulated various forms bugs vermin. 11 '18. illness diseases now suffers caused him O's premises? 12 '19. Were proximately defendant? 13 '20. (W)as anticipate (maintaining stagnant, infested pool) might probably mishap injury? '21. Is proximate causal relationship bite, physical plaintiff? 15 '22. 21 within foreseeability appreciate between No.' trial appealed, assigning error rulings, none found 'prejudicial rights appellant,' except fundamental one, court's view, should directed because insufficient support petitioner.2 showed bit severe injuries. It also 'to maintain period vermin-infested over insects gather,' property required 'could furnish gravamen offense (sic) Act.' 387. emphasized, however, 'direct existence unidentified bug time connection pool,' become infected substance infection, negative alternative possibility emanated 'the nearby putrid mouth River, weeds, unsanitary places situated not owned controlled railroad.' therefore merely 'a series guesses speculations chain causation too tenuous conclusion liability.' Id., 388. '(W)e possibilities shared subjecting damage injury, but proof legal falls short consideration jury.' Ibid. Accordingly, reversed think function province case. According Appeals, break turned mere 'series speculations' want properly conclude something do only hold record shows sufficient warrant 17 As 'insects pool.' undisputed testimony, stood half minute; then started walk away after took few steps, perhaps seconds later. testified, cross-examination, times same size crawling pigeons And cross-examination witnesses testified rat-infested pools breed insects.3 Moreover, specifically 18 erred demanding either pool' else substantial circumstantial than adduced here 'that created conditions influences helped incubate environment insect, having traveled areas, contaminated Under ruling cases raise issue determination 19 Tennant versus Peoria P.U.R. Co., 321 29, 64 409, 88 L.Ed. 520, leading cases, certiorari 'because important problems causation.' direct how decedent killed. careless failing ring warning bell before moving engine, victim killed being run train. met susceptible answers, all somewhat conjectural evidence, supported claims others respondent's. set aside failure make cause, reversed: 20 'It search conflicting order take theory gives equal inconsistent uncertain inferences. focal point judicial review reasonableness inference drawn jury. fact-finding body. weighs contradictory inferences, judges credibility witnesses, receives expert instructions, draws ultimate facts. very essence select among inferences conclusions considers most reasonable. Washington Georgetown R. company McDade, 135 554, 571, 572, 1044, 1049, 34 235; Tiller Atlantic Coast Line supra, 318 68, 63 451, 143 American Law 967; Bailey Central Vermont Ry., 319 350, 353, 354, 1062, 1064, 87 1444. That conclusion, relates factual matter, cannot ignored. Courts are free reweigh different feel results reasonable.' U.S., 35, 412. Later involving sufficiency several explanations plausible follow teaching Schulz Pennsylvania 350 523, 76 608, 100 668, tug fireman drowned undetermined arising 'work dark, icy undermanned boats'; lower said: 'There accidental death. But shred connecting two.' held require submission Lavender Kurn, 327 645, 66 740, 90 916, another cause injury correct. Petitioner's mail-hook protruding train hit victim, unknown murderer responsible. Both theories plausible; petitioner, evidence. ground committed 'an undue invasion historic function.' 22 These does instant case, involved employer harm, or, precisely, enough justify played role producing harm. recent Rogers Missouri Pac. 352 500, 77 443, 493, questions whether, given antecedent carelessness maintaining roadside surface loose, slippery gravel instead firm, flat footing, impact neglectfulness negatived subsequent concurrent pay attention supposed doing. Although context thus dissimilar language used apposite: 23 'Under statute test simply proofs *. matter that, may reason, grounds probability, attribute causes Judicial appraisal determine presented narrowly limited single inquiry Judges fix their sights primarily and, met, bound find made allows choice probabilities.' 506—507, 448—449. 24 fall standard refusing accept verdict. II. 25 we injuries, end case.4 Respondent argument ground, accepted foreseeable, 26 agree harm essential ingredient Inman Baltimore O.R. 361 138, 140, 80 242, 243, 198; see Brady Southern 320 476, 483—484, 232, 236, 239; 54, 67, 444, 618; Ringhiser Chesapeake 354 901, 903, 905, 1093, 1096, 1268 (dissenting opinions); 503, 493; cf. Morales City Galveston, 370 165, 171, 1226, 1230, 412; Dalehite States, 346 15, 42, 73 956, 971, 97 1427.5 requirement has satisfied findings (Nos. 14—19, 21) filthy water. instructed observe degree people ordinary prudence sagacity use similar circumstances;6 measured prudent person 'defendant's duties foreseeable like circumstances'—by 'in light known, anticipated.'7 Thus these facts: insect; disease led condition; responsible petitioner; knew area—it clear realized increased likelihood insect's biting petitiioner vicinity 27 reliance, upon returned 22, foresee events culminate condition—loss limbs, widespread ulcerations, permanent disability. other, 20, maintenance 'would injury.' Nos. fatal inconsistency they cancel out, defendant, least new trial. Freightways, Inc., Stafford, 217 831, 835 (C.A.8th Cir.); Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 49(b). Larrissey Norwalk Lines, 155 207, 214—215, 98 419, 423—424; Klever Reid Bros., 151 467, 86 612. courts attempt harmonize possible fair reading them: 'Where view answers consistent, resolved way.' Gulf Stevedores, Ellerman Ltd., 355, 364, 780, 786, 798. reconcile findings, exegesis necessary, Arnold Panhandle S.F.R. 353 360, 840, 889; McVey Phillips Petroleum 288 53 (C.A.5th Morris 187 837 (C.A.2d Cir.) (collecting authorities), disregard remand 28 believe compelled findings. first place, equated injury. judge once instructions separated 'insect bite' 'injury,' 'infection,' 'illness' 'disease.' mean bits 'mishap' 'injury' bite. category response plaintiff. widely consequential need acts: assuming threshold tort against person, whatever flow recoverable. See, e.g., Boal Electric Battery 815, 819 (C.A.3d Koehler Waukesha Milk 190 Wis. 52, 57—63, 208 Northwestern KF135 N69 903—905 authorities); Restatement, Torts, 435; Harper James, 1139—1140; Prosser, 260 (2d ed.); Seavey, Cardozo 48 Yale L.J. 390, 402—403.8 doubt tortfeasor 'negligence part, even slightest' (Rogers 506, 448, 493) compensate improbable unexpectedly wrongful act. Cf. Kernan Dredging 355 426, 78 394, 382; Coray 335 69 275, 93 208; Lillie Thompson, 332 459, 68 92 73. controlling purposes. 29 second deciding account past experience respecting location question' fact occurrence kind occurred, known 1954.'9 determined since incidents past, specific 'reason' anticipating petitioner—a far narrow concept Act. independent put immaterial. Looking charge total verdict, 53, 59 Halprin Mora, 231 197, 201 Cir.), assign weight overturning 30 examined contentions without merit, including contention finding depriving 889. remanded proceedings opinion. 31 Reversed. 32 HARLAN, dissenting. 33 Heartrending accident be, N Immigration Nationality Decisions brought here. involves unsettled federal calling Court, nor, acceptable sense, departure principles already decided requiring Court's intervention. qualify Rule 19.* dissenting Frankfurter Pacific 524, 458, separate writer, Page 559, 478. necessarily inordinate amount time, can ill afford docket. Reaching merits, Pages 559—562, 478, 479, affirm below. my Brothers STEWART GOLDBERG addition, say taken courts, holding arbitrary unreasonable one. evinces conscientious effort decisions Act, particularly broad pronouncements supra. score reversal seems me second-guessing estimate record. 35 From standpoint significance. affords dramatic example inadequacy meet social obligations modern industrial society. cure lies legislature 36 GOLDBERG, 37 disposition explicit foreseeable. correctly states, 'foreseeability negligence.' Interrogatory unambiguous: '(W)as (maintenance injury?' our interrogatory, irreconcilably 16, ordered. 38 agrees 16. concluding cancels voids entire undertakes meaning bring line favors seeks Procrustean often-repeated admonition every trial.' generally sound guideline misapplied 39 emerged answerer 889.1 40 inconsistencies dealt parties seemingly added interrogatories. purpose preserve, possible, integrity commentator explained, 49(b), 41 'The power enter consistent each constitutional violate Seventh Amendment re-examined but, regulation practice, allowed embodied Every intendment should, indulged favor interrogatories, latter 'where conflict material reconciliation inferences.' Of course, basis provided Rule, entry all, return deliberation Moore, Practice, 49.04. 42 mentions 'special verdict' refers party. answered list questions, neither were, nor made, consistent. Nothing structure marks obviously line. plausible—and incorrect—to read conform respondent.2 43 hence disagree Brother standards laid down Pac.R. 493. arises wherein immaterial, interrogatory asked, effect, foreseeable—an irrelevant merits aptly points out. 44 Our disagreement arises, therefore, treatment 20. Since, recognizes, (as distinguished covered 22) liability FELA plainly 16.3 Because negligent, yet unforeseeable, is, impossible party based By undertaking irretrievably think, attributes Appeals—it statute. avoid intrusion ordering For reasons Statutes-at-Large 65, amended, refusal n.o.v. Journal Entry, 629. emphasized ever complained about, factor gauging actual corresponded N.W.2d, 387; 'sufficient credible evidence' disagreed related. show bites, witness September 1954. baron KF105 F3 Goodrich 126, 127, 471, 472, 602; Exp. 265 425, 435, 560, 563, 1087; Frey Son, Cudahy Packing 256 208, 210, 65 892. concerned breach statutory regulatory purport define content nonstatutory nonregulatory amounting purposes 'Negligence sometimes protection care, precaution, vigilance justly demand, sometimes, words, circumstances. What ordinarily persons done circumstances?' guard circumstances, likely happen. anything correct condition. You apply rule Defendant's measuring conduct what, anticipated. you case.' 'If actor's bringing another, actor foresaw foreseen manner occurred prevent liable.' 435. 'In well called consequences, full regard foreseeability.' 1140. almost universal agreement unforeseeable plaintiff.' 260. anticipate—that considering much ought gone foreseeing guarding mishaps dangers upon. entirely proper indicating future.' pertinent provides: '1. A writ right, discretion, will therefor. following, fully character considered: '(a) Where theretofore accord court. *' 798, contrary. erroneously synthesized appeared face underlying questions. Indeed, indulge process speculation derive others—as majority overriding one—support preferring entering gained 13, furnished work, thereby contradicting Reference oral concerning Interrogatories additionally negatives attempted description statement cast terms 'failure care,' suggestion demand' relation contrast abstract reference answering (that) performance practicable impossibilities, employer's slightest, introducing (sic producing?) result.' instruction not. was, anything, unduly favorable equation fact, negative.

Classification Label: 7