Court Opinion

ID: 9451561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:19:50.982153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:47.817042
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
In Federal Employers’ Liability Act cases there is very little scope for appellate review of jury verdicts. “Judicial appraisal * * * is narrowly limited to the single inquiry whether, with reason, the conclusion may be drawn that negligence of the employer played any part at all in the injury or death.” (Emphasis added.) Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 506-507, 77 S.Ct. 443, 449, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957).
In the present case the facts are essentially uncontroverted and relatively simple. The inspection of the “Buffalo Extra” had been delayed and speed in carrying out the inspection was required. The train had been “humped”; some open doors were to be anticipated.
Terminal Supervisor Martin, a witness for appellant, indicated that he was “responsible for the safe, efficient, mechanical operation of all functions” in the yard. He testified that it is “good common railroad practice to have a motor ear adjacent to the track that is being inspected.” Martin’s testimony concerning the need for the motor scooter, and its special door pulling equipment, to be readily accessible was corroborated by foreman Kimber.
There was only one motor scooter assigned to the westbound advance yard. Only one train was being inspected the night of the accident. Supervisor Martin testified:
“If there were only one train to be inspected and the motorcar was available, it would be good common sense to utilize that motorcar to expedite the handling and inspection of that train. That is the primary purpose of the motorcar.”
Foreman Kimber agreed.
In reply to a question as to whether the motor scooter was “under your jurisdiction,” foreman Kimber replied “Yes, absolutely.” Nevertheless, Kimber testified that he could not remember whether or not he had assigned the motor scooter to accompany the inspectors, and had no idea where the scooter was at the time of the accident. Despite this damaging testimony, appellant produced no evidence as to the whereabouts of the scooter. Appellee could not reasonably have been expected to offer evidence as to the location of the scooter, especially since such information was “peculiarly in the knowledge of the adversary.” McCormick, Evidence § 318 at 675 (1954).
The district court charged the jury:
“Now all of those claims center around the claim that this motorcar was not *96available. Now it is for you to determine whether that motorcar was or was not available in accordance with what would be the duty of the railroad to exercise reasonable care. That is one of the questions of fact that you will have to decide.”
The scooter arrived at the scene of the accident a substantial amount of time, approximately ten minutes, after Kuber-ski was injured. In view of the time taken to secure the scooter, the jury could properly have found that it was not readily available and that appellant had therefore negligently failed to supply appellee with necessary tools.
Both supervisory employees, Martin and Kimber, recognized that car inspectors would attempt to close doors manually; indeed, Kimber explained:
“the procedure is for the four car-men or inspectors to come down the train and close whatever doors they can manually, and just push them aside, and if they can’t on some occasions, they call to their partner who is on the other side to assist them.”
It was therefore foreseeable that, because of the lack of appropriate tools, Kuberski would be called upon to cross from the south to the north side of the train. Given limitations of time, prior practice, and the natural propensity of employees to seek the quickest way, the appellant should have expected Kuberski to cross as he did rather than going over, under or around the train.
Certainly a jury was entitled to conclude that, because of appellant’s negligent failure to provide the necessary tools, Kuberski was exposed to a substantial and foreseeable risk when he crossed the coupler in the darkness with only a hand lantern which shone above his head because he had to use both hands to clutch “grab irons.” Appellant’s failure to supply the motor scooter directly precipitated appellee’s risk. Ap-pellee’s injury was, therefore, as the jury found, the direct and proximate result of appellant’s negligence.
I would affirm.