Legal Document

356 U.S. 326 78 Supreme Court Reporter 758 2 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 799 Parris SINKLER, Petitioner,v.MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. Number 133. Argued March 12 and 13, 1958. Decided April 28, Rehearing Denied June 2, See 978, 1133. Mr. Cornelius O. Ryan, Houston, Tex., for petitioner. Roy L. Arterbury, respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner was employed by respondent railroad as a cook on private car respondent's general manager. He working when switching crew, Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company (hereinafter Railway), undertook to switch from one track another in Union Station at Texas. Through fault caused violently collide with station, injured. recovered judgment against an action brought under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Statutes-at-Large 65, amended, 45 Code KF62 §§ 51—60, Annotated KF65 U5 District Harris County, Civil Appeals Ninth Judicial Texas reversed upon ground that FELA did not subject liability injuries its employee employees Railway. 295 South Western Reporter, 2nd 508. denied petitioner's application writ error. We granted certiorari. 355 809, 14, 28. Neither nor predecessors have, since 1905, performed operations terminal area. Switching is vital operational activity railroading consisting breaking up assembly trains handling cars interchange other carriers. This function, area, has been contracted predecessors, carriers, Railway, carrier specially organized purpose. 3 several including respondent,1 own operate perform these operations. organizing or their successors, Railway's stock are represented Board Directors proportion holdings. owns one-half designates directors. receives some income non-stockholding carriers but stockholders otherwise share net expenses according agreed formula. employs crews personnel, operates facilities rolling used 4 A railroad's § compensate damages resulting whole part 'any officers, agents, employees' such carrier. 51, 51. No question officers here raised, only whether were due 'agents' within meaning section. 5 held that, independent contractor lawful contract do behalf, 'agents.' applied rule doctrine superior does extend contractors concluded evidence insufficient show exercised control over details operations, crew imputable respondent.2 6 It should first be noted common-law jurisdictions recognized exception respondeat engaged activities required carry out franchise. In circumstance liable servants even though manner method which latter work. Different theories supported this liability, depending person injured railroad, passenger, third party. case theory phrased nondelegable duty care springing contractual relationship between employer employee, Floody versus Great Northern R. Co., 102 Minn. 81, 112 Northwestern KF135 N69 875, 1081, 13 L.R.A., N.S., 1196, franchise see no wrong done through exercise persons chartered powers. North Chicago Street company Dudgeon, 184 Ill. 477, 56 Northeastern N59 796. However phrased, substantial authority decisions recovery his performing employer's operations.3 7 However, interpreting FELA, we need depend principles liability. statute, avowed departure rules common law, cf. Rogers Missouri Pacific 352 500, 507—509, 77 443, 448—450, 493, response special needs workers who daily exposed risks inherent work helpless provide adequately safety. Tiller Atlantic Coast Line 318 54, 63 444, 87 L.Ed. 610. cost human injury, inescapable expense railroading, must borne someone, seeks adjust equitably worker Kernan American Dredging 426, 431, 438, 394, 397, 401, 382. Senate Committee reported Act stated it designed achieve broad purpose promoting 8 'the welfare both adjusting losses inseparable industry commerce strength those nature ought burden.' S.Rep. 460, 60th Cong., 1st Sess. 3. 9 Thus while law had generally regarded torts fellow separate distinct employer, holding responsible torts, conception legislation unitary enterprise, economic resources obligated bear burden all befalling enterprise arising any member endeavor. Hence may recover injury worker, because himself blame, justice demands gives labor furtherance assured combining exertions him pursuit will conduct themselves respects sufficient safety doing endangered. If standard met results, compensated damages. 10 controls our decision determining section.4 Plainly accommodating scope given word give vitality governing job.5 supra, pages 431 432, 438—439, 397—398, 401. 11 present respondent, rather than necessary incident business arranged supply equipment operation behalf. But clearly establishes trains, crews, being handled further task enterprise. While about job were, purposes much total regular car. manifest corporate autonomy freedom detailed supervision irrelevant inasmuch moment collision station furthering therefore hold employee's others performing, contract, FELA. cause remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 14 Reversed remanded. 15 CLARK concurs result, believing time injury. 16 WHITTAKER, but, circumstances case, also passenger place franchised responsibilities nondelegable, result 17 HARLAN, whom FRANKFURTER joins, dissenting. 18 step course rapidly converting 51—60 (and Jones incorporates 41 1007, 46 688, 688), into what amounts workmen's compensation statute. 19 process recently gained marked momentum 524, 559, 459, 478, decided 1956 Term, where effect established 'scintilla' cases judging sufficiency issue 'causation.' subsequent extended, sub silentio, cover 'negligence.'1 More 382, few months ago, still expanded enactments embrace concept absolute violation statutory occasioning entitled sue them. And today told '* * FELA.' so long customary delegate here, Fort Worth States, Cir., 22 795, notwithstanding traditional concepts specialized would contractors.2 See, e.g., Brady G.W.R. 114 KF105 F3 100, 108—112, 57 L.R.A. 712; Moleton R.R. 118 Utah 107, 114—115, 219 1080, 1084. 20 light legislative history difficult regard developments products freewheeling. founded negligence qualifications Congress imported terms.' Urie Thompson, 337 163, 182, 69 1018, 1030, 93 1282. dissenting opinions 538—539, 563—564, 458, 466—467, 480—481, Credging 441, 451—452, 402, 406—407. yet seen fit enact effected modifying abolishing defenses contributory assumption risk. 66, 53, 53; 54. particularly, well-known legal term like legislation, taken carrying ordinary unless statute indicates contrary. Cf. Hull Philadelphia 252 475, 479, 40 358, 359, 64 670. principle 'accommodating scope' resorts justification expansive now is, new construction N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions have aware until today. 21 dissent. originally subscribed four corporations. two interest Beaumont, Sour Lake St. Louis, Brownsville Mexico. suit Trustee Bankruptcy roads. Upon reorganization Pacific, substituted party defendant. jury, issues submitted trial judge, expressly found 'submits itself right (respondent) respect work.' Wabash, P2 Ry. Peyton, 106 534, Am.Rep. 705; Burnes Kansas City, Ft. S. M.R. 129 Mo. 41, 31 Southwestern S79 347; Story Concord M.R.R., 70 N.H. 364, 48 288; Gulf, C. S.F.R. Shelton, 96 Tex. 301, 72 165; S.F. Shearer, Tex.Civ.App. 343, 133; D.C.R. Smith, 39 92, 371; 712. significant there omitted section enacted language original bills imposed 'of control.' Hearings before Education Labor 5307, 3, 34; House Judiciary H.R. 17036, 34. Respondent's reliance Robinson Baltimore O.R. 237 84, 491, 59 849, Linstead Chesapeake 276 241, 453, misplaced. each plaintiff defendant railroad. Webb Illinois Central 512, 451, 503; Ferguson Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 521, 457, 511; Shaw 353 920, 680, 718; Futrelle 682, Deen Colorado 925, 715, 721; Thomson P.R. 926, 698, 722; Ringhiser 354 901, 1093, 1268; McBride Toledo 517, 1398, 1534; Gibson 18, 1; Stinson 62, 136, 93; Honeycutt Wabash 424, 393, 380; Louis-San Francisco 671; Butler Whiteman, 271, 734. Although footnote refers jury's finding 'control supervision' understand placed here. seems enough say without support evidence, state appellate court held.

Classification Label: 7