Legal Document

368 U.S. 35 82 Supreme Court Reporter 148 7 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 103 Carl STILL, Petitioner,v.NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. Number 48. Argued Oct. 19, 1961. Decided Nov. 13, Sidney S. Sachs, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Joseph M. Sanders, Bluefield, W. Va., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Federal Employers' Liability Act1 requires railroads to pay damages personal injuries negligently inflicted upon their employees. question this case presents is whether a railroad can escape statutory liability by proving that an employee so injured has obtained his job making false representations which rightfully relied in hiring him. 2 Petitioner brought action West Virginia state court seeking from respondent Norfolk Western Railway Company, which, as date alleged injuries, he had worked continuously except one-year interruption, some six years. By special plea, set up defense contention petitioner was not 'employed' it within meaning Act2 and support defense: (1) made fraudulent application employment with regard physical condition other matters pertinent eligibility capacity serve employee; (2) would have been hired but these misrepresentations fact they misled railroad's officials; (3) very defects fraudulently concealed contributed injury petitioner's based. Petitioner's demurrer plea overruled evidence both parties presented jury. When all in, however, trial directed jury bring verdict defendant on ground undisputed showed deceived into health 'direct causal connection' 3 Throughout proceedings court, contended no should be against him grounds, among others: allegations fraud were sufficient law under Act; even if law, rested questions submitted On writ error, Appeals refused overturn court's either two grounds. Though we recognized might possibly disposed second granted certiorari consider important raised first concerning proper interpretation, scope Act.3 4 primary contention, accepted principal basis sufficiency its established Court's decision Minneapolis, St. Paul Ste. Marie R. company versus Rock.4 That involved negligent one Joe Rock, who whole series misrepresentations. Rock originally applied own name rejected when found such did meet requirements. Several days later, reapplied same and, order conceal previously because health, represented himself 'John Rock,' apparently fictitious assumed purpose. He next arranged Lenhart pose Rock' take examination. passed physical, mistaken belief Lenhart's condition. unusual combination facts, held could recover Act, saying: 'Right may justify or reasonably foundation abhorrent public policy.'5 5 here seeks itself arguing principle any representation deceives employer results worker's getting otherwise bar worker recovering Congress provided workers honest performance duties Act. Although there language lend think plain rule ever intended. Certainly contemporaneous understanding courts plainly shown statements Judge Nordbye interpretation urged only year later at Borum: 'It inconceivable Butler intended hold every violation rules framed maintaining certain standard safety efficiency employees render void deny defrauding rights act. It seems quite clear practiced plaintiff herein most rendered contract voidable.'6 And Borum came here, Court, although do so, extend manner.7 Borum, considered light facts involved, reflects clearly contemporaneously understood limitations approach reluctance vague notions policy new factual situations. 6 forty-nine time, wanted had, interest promoting operations, adopted men over forty-five. Knowing this, told officials thirty-eight deliberate misrepresentation, given. took required examination, knew nothing Borum's deception about age until seven years after lost legs accident caused negligence filed suit Just before case, lastminute investigation turned real sought rely This unanimously upheld Minnesota courts' determination right despite admittedly material misrepresentation age, brushing aside attempted reliance 'that found, taken connection those uncontradicted evidence, are Pacific KF135 P2 S.S.M. Ry. supra, reasons rests.'8 In conclusion, pointed number differences case. mentioned, mind unlike 'impostor' presenting named initial rejected. Secondly, again never approved physically fit examining surgeon. Finally, reference rules, discharged more than thirty since original provisional final unless changed period. But recognized, distinction between based acceptable reconciling principle. cases, guilty material, without employed. method obtaining was, intimated 'abhorrent policy' normal 'void' 'voidable' contracts ignored,9 mere existence limiting time discharge cause not, course, overridden policy. therefore, above, upholding distinctions merely extended cover facts. 8 though show non-existence broad recovery proved completely unsatisfactory establish affirmatively intelligible guide lower decide what compel forfeiture federal forced struggle baffling problem how much kinds sufficiently further guidance Consequently, almost faced dilemma occasioned able argue considerable force favor absolutely decisions result vast majority acceptance laying down narrow holding establishes need make exceptions appropriate cases. And, perhaps surprisingly, cases deemed ones avoiding harsh consequences creating allow whenever already established.10 Occasionally, barred recovery, few seem entirely indistinguishable significant grounds many created exceptions.11 9 situation, necessary orderly administration justice, fresh look effort supply future decisions. Having done conclude properly interpreted, lays general all. confronted who, undeniably practical legal sense, outrageous manner seemed permit Act passed.12 There occasion us reconsider correctness peculiar indeed, arise again. We conclude, must limited precise face legislative embodied families perform duties, considerations kind cannot permitted encroach expressed To facilitate congressional policy, terms 'employee' used must, involving interpreted according ordinary meaning, status become through fraud, subject termination rescission employment, purposes suits conclusion affected employee's have, argument, gained popularity primarily exception avoided,13 suggests partially Act—that others inflicted, depending circumstances each particular injury. Even suggestion recommended reason—which, mistakenly drawn does not—we free accept it. For finds history, purpose provides 'injury death resulting part of' railroad14 prior authority permits disregard impair controlling declaration policy.15 10 therefore entitled suffered due negligence. error direct fraud. reversed remanded inconsistent opinion. 11 Reversed remanded. 12 FRANKFURTER, concurring judgment trial. 13 issue sustain claiming 45 Code KF62 §§ 51—58, Annotated KF65 U5 51 58. regarding him, bars matter view our M.R. 279 410, 49 363, 73 L.Ed. 766. remedies unavailable because, author pithily stated occasions, 'was impostor.' 412, 364; 286 447, 450, 52 612, 76 1218. 14 now overrule says 'must facts.' N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions statement refers relevant case; mean Rock. 15 defined relies. latter review refusal arbitral finding employee. affirmed require deceit materially prejudiced employer's efforts select improperly trier fact. 16 similarly dispose is, withdrawn governed supra. 17 WHITTAKER, dissenting. 18 Claiming back fellow servants course interstate commerce, beneficent provisions 51—58. terms, depend upon, things, status. At offered jury, moved ground, others, occupy railroad. Believing procured putative relation to, concealments from, physician admitted congenitally defective reasonable differ it, motion did, return declined certiorari. 365 877, 81 1026, 190. 19 reverses judgment, also—I gratuitously erroneously—restricts 766, 'to While procuring relationship fairly me, courts, concede it; deal issues, am say determined instead resolution. unable agree gratuitous erroneous restriction facts,' dissent. 20 flagrant maintain willfully under, conditions defenses imposed by, laws State casualty occurred. Of may. His however flagrant, give license injure Rather whether, status, benefits, freedom defenses, given honestly acquired truly intend benefits person falls 'precise facts' myriad variations thereof. 21 induced determine somewhat less compelling legally like result, stand age-old sound proposition inducement vitiates contract. repudiation 22 Irrespective fundamental 'whether, notwithstanding means got * (, petitioner) Act.' U.S., 413, S.Ct., 365. here. Today, 'Act abrogates fellow-servant (and) restricts contributory assumption rick,' id., 365, yet there, 'in seeks, virtue common (the railroad) liable injuries.' Ibid. Quite explicitly, conferred Surely fall '(t)he carriers owe duty patrons (and public) well engaged operation care exclude unfit service. enforcement calculated stimulate them duty.' 413—414, One obstructs surely profit wrong. These underlying principles submit sound. 23 enable declare hence find, fraud; contract, never, truth, protect extraordinary Otherwise, (petitioner have) secured (would) naught carrier's practice promote public, its) commerce.' Such directly oppose 'the embarrass hinder carrier defeat advanced 414, 24 Only fair measure simple honesty involved. Surely, contemplated expected create surrounding rights. 25 rightly instructed, aggravated warrants, follow that, acquire still valid call reason tamper 51—60, 51—60. 'Every while engaging commerce several Territories, District Columbia Territories foreign nation nations, shall suffering employed or, employee, her representative, benefit surviving widow husband children none, then parents; kin dependent officers, agents, carrier, defect insufficiency, negligence, cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, equipment.' § 51, 51. (Emphasis supplied.) Id., 415, Nordbye's reported appears record certified See also Qualls Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Co., 112 Cal.App. 7, 17, 296 645, 650: 'This (Rock) distinguished bar. really company. present employed.' But, cf. Fort Worth Denver City Griffith, Tex.Civ.App., 27 South Reporter, 2nd 351, 354. 451, 613. 'The character renders voidable rather void, ignored Case traveling character, effect, appellee became appellant.' See, e.g., 650 (misrepresentations past 'immaterial'); Powers Michigan Central 268 Ill.App. 493, 498 insufficient 'involved facts'); Dawson Texas 123 Tex. 191, 196, 70 392, 304 medical history nowise connected related fitness ability him'); New Orleans Webster, 197, 201, 394, 396 previous litigation arising out 'it error's insure employees'); Carter Peoria Pekin Union 275 298, 303—304 'evidence effect former way disqualified prevented appellant performing switchman'); Phillips Southern Cal.App.2d 454, 457, 58 688, 690 facilitated use showing 'a misstatements employment'); Laughter Powell, 219 N.C. 689, 698, Eastern 826, 832, 136 American Law 1116 misrepresentations, voidable, master servant, defendants plaintiff'); Newkirk Los Angeles Junction Cal.2d 308, 320, 131 535, 543 '(w)here going factum exists rescinding least where misrepresentation'); Matthews 54 549, 556, 129 435, 441 requiring "a misstatements' happening injury, effects'); Blanton Northern 215 Minn. 442, 446, North 382, 384 plaintiff's hurt'); Casso Pennsylvania Cir., 303, 305 'of 'substantially surgeon's good condition"); Eresafe York, Haven Hartford 250 619, 621—622 identity, '(a) humane realistic substantial proof subsequent employee'); White Thompson, 181 Kan. 485, 497 498, 312 621 sustained, substantially examiner's condition, remained unaware injuries'). four attention prevail procurement employment. these, Forth decided felt bound Rock: 'In deference States, feel constrained follow, three are: Clark Idaho 70, 211 402 (judgment failure instruct defense); Pac Libbey, 199 341 exclusion relating Talarowski 135 F.Supp. 503 (motion strike denied). All Compare cited note 10, especially Co.; Thompson. comment decision, see Merrill, Misrepresentation Secure Employment, Minn.L.Rev. 646; Comment, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 141; 28 Mich.L.Rev. 357. 'A recovery.' 621—622. Mention requirement too Louis San Francisco Brantley, 168 Ala. 579, 588, 53 S69 305, 307; Lupher 585, 589, 106 284, 286, L.R.A.,N.S., 707; Galveston, Harrisburg Antonio Harris, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 434, 437, 107 Southwestern S79 108, 110; Louisville Nashville Lewis, 218 Ky. 205, 291 401, 404. intimate circumstances, pre-existing complained part' tending all, injured, responsible full extent diminished Indeed, said point direction, toward totally irrelevant. For, expressly 'While (Rock's) propriety admitting employment.'

Classification Label: 7