Court Opinion

ID: 9860948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:37:34.812511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:54.769595
License: Public Domain

ENGLISH, P. J., dissenting: It seems to me that the majority have failed to apply evenhandedly the same principles to both sides of this case in reviewing the evidence relating to negligence. My colleagues have been able to perceive evidence of defendant’s negligence to support the verdict, but are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of evidence that contributory negligence played any part at all, even the slightest, in producing the injuries. Thus, plaintiffs could properly “get to the jury” but defendant could not. On the record before us, I cannot agree with this one-sided use of the jury’s fact-finding function. As to defendant’s negligence, there was no evidence whatsoever that defendant knew of the presence of lead paint in the cars which were being dismantled. The record leaves no room for disagreement on this point, so it must be in the light of constructive notice that the majority make the flat statement that “defendant was given notice that there was lead paint on the 31,000 series cars.” And this must turn, then, on whether defendant, by the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of the existence of lead in the paint on the cars being stripped. Proof on this issue must be found in the testimony of the plaintiffs themselves or of the other witnesses on their behalf. I shall consider the other witnesses first. Plaintiffs called Axel Johnson, who testified that he had worked for defendant until his retirement on February 1, 1964; that he had been a car foreman in the area where plaintiffs worked in the fall of 1955 and was familiar with the stripping operation then being performed on the 31,-000 series cars. He then testified: “ [I] n my opinion the surface of the material contained some kind of lead.” At that point in the trial all the plaintiffs had testified, and it may be noted in passing how desperately weak they must have considered their own case to be (on the point of defendant’s knowledge of the presence of lead paint) when they decided it was necessary to introduce the opinion testimony of this witness; for, on cross-examination, he completely demolished the supporting structure of his own direct testimony by testifying that his opinion as to the presence of lead was based on the fact that plaintiffs “got sick from it.” The same witness testified further that he had “been around those cars” for the railroad for 44 years and in all that time had never known of any cases of lead poisoning other than those of plaintiffs. Defendant’s industrial physician, called as a witness for plaintiffs, testified to the same effect covering his period of knowledge, commencing in 1945. In their work plaintiffs wore burner’s canvas jackets, leather gloves and leather leggings. They also wore goggles to protect their eyes, but did not use any respiratory masks. The work was performed in the open air, and over a period of 44 years no workmen except plaintiffs had contracted lead poisoning. Thus, going back to 1919 or 1920, there had been a period of at least 18 years, and undoubtedly much longer (since the work was done on old cars being scrapped or rebuilt), when all of the cars which were dismantled had been built prior to 1938. Since the 31,000 series cars on which plaintiffs worked were built in 1937, this is an important background against which to consider the testimony of plaintiffs’ industrial hygiene and safety expert (Kirschner), again on the question of whether defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of the existence of lead paint. The witness summed up his own evidence when he testified: “All I’m saying now is that as an expert I would guess that there was a greater likelihood that railroad cars painted in 1937 had some red lead than railroad cars that were painted later.” In my opinion, this does not satisfy even the “any evidence” rule on the issue in question. The standard of ordinary care involved in this case is that of defendant’s employees who were railroad laymen, whereas the witness spoke “as an expert.” Even in that capacity his opinion was couched in the form, “I would guess.” And then only as to a “greater likelihood” of the existence of “some red lead.” The same expert testified that the health problems involved in the cutting of lead-painted steel with acetylene torches is known not only to experts but also to lay people in the industry. There is nothing in the record on which the majority may base their apparent conclusion that there is “common knowledge” of injury from inhaling the fumes of burning ordinary paint.1 As a matter of fact, the 44-year record of illness-free paint burning in this case belies that statement. Our only source of knowledge on this subject is the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, and he meticulously made it clear that the danger about which he was testifying was limited to the burning of paint containing lead.2 With this proposition defendant is in complete agreement. The basic difficulties here, however, and, I believe, the sources of great confusion throughout this case, are (1) that the burning of nonlead paint has no probative value to plaintiffs’ case in establishing negligence on the part of defendant, and (2) that the well-known injurious properties of fumes from burning lead paint have nothing to do with that issue either, unless it also be shown that defendant knew that lead paint was present in plaintiffs’ burning operation. Plaintiffs’ supporting witnesses having utterly failed to satisfy plaintiffs’ burden on this issue, we must turn to the testimony of plaintiffs themselves. As related in the majority opinion, the cars plaintiffs started working on in October, 1955 were painted black, with an undercoat of red-orange which the men called “lead paint.” Del Raso testified, “There was some orange lead paint on the body bolsters . . . .” Benson said, “We would call it lead.” Dalpiaz testified, “We always called it lead paint.’ ” When presented through the first witness, this testimony was admitted over defendant’s objection. Plaintiffs apparently considered it highly important for them to prove that while they were working on the job they recognized the red-orange paint as containing lead. My colleagues also seem to attach great weight to this fact. So do I. But of equal significance is the fact that, so far as the record shows, plaintiffs never talked about the lead paint to anyone except themselves. They did not mention it to their now deceased foreman when complaining about smoke from the paint. And they did not even mention it to their own doctors to whom they went for treatment! The majority opinion states that if the foreman had “talked with any of the men employed in stripping the 31,000 series he would have been put on notice of the fact that there was a great likelihood that lead paint was on those cars.” Indulging in the hypothesis of such a conversation is unnecessary on this record because plaintiffs testified that they did have repeated conversations with foreman Koleto about the fumes and smoke, and there is no testimony whatsoever that they ever mentioned the presence of lead paint — a fact which they had been aware of (according to their testimony) as early as the latter part of October. This becomes all the more important when it is realized that all of the plaintiffs had done a substantial amount of car burning prior to October, during all of which earlier operations they would have been working on paint which did not contain red lead.3  Further testimony of plaintiffs is of interest when considered against the background of their amended complaint. There it is alleged that they “were compelled” to work at the job of car stripping where they inhaled lead paint fumes; and that defendant’s negligence lay in “compelling” plaintiffs to work at this job when, by the exercise of ordinary care, it should have known that they would contract lead poisoning. Plaintiffs testified that they were qualified as carmen under their union contract and that, with sufficient seniority, they could decide whether they wanted to work in the shop or on the car-burning job. It is undisputed that all plaintiffs had the seniority to take them off the burning job at any time they might have elected during the last months of 1955 and early 1956; and it is also undisputed that there were vacancies in the shop which could have been theirs upon demand during all that period. The differential in pay was only five cents per hour, which, at plaintiffs’ scale, amounted to only 2%%, or slightly less. When they returned to work after their illnesses, all of the plaintiffs exercised their union right to opt for a shop job. As explained by Dalpiaz: “If you have seniority and certain jobs come up on bulletin you can have the job if you have enough seniority and you bid on it. I haven’t gone back as a burner at any time since I went back.” There is no claim that this right to job transfer was not available to plaintiffs throughout the critical months, and yet the record discloses that none of the plaintiffs ever bid for a shop job during that period. Nothing in the alleged conversations with the deceased foreman raises any question on this score. Considering, then, all the evidence introduced by plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof on the proposition that defendant, by the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of the presence of lead paint in the burning operation (Urie v. Thompson, 337 US 163), it seems to me that the proof is either wholly lacking or, at best, very slim indeed. Assuming that the record does contain sufficient evidence to have permitted the case to go to the jury on this point, it is perfectly clear that all such proof originated with plaintiffs themselves. They were the only ones who knew of the presence of what they thought was lead paint, and it was only through them that this knowledge, somehow or other, without testimonial explanation, was transmitted so that the defendant should have known also. Are not the plaintiffs then faced with the corollary propositions that, knowing of the existence of the lead paint, they also knew (by the common knowledge of laymen, as testified to by their own expert) of the danger to health from inhaling smoke and fumes therefrom; that it then became their duty to avoid exposure to such danger through the exercise of ordinary care; that it was admittedly within their power to avoid this dangerous exposure by bidding on back shop jobs to which their union seniority entitled them; and that they did not do so. I believe the situation thus presents stronger evidence of contributory negligence than the evidence of defendant’s negligence which was permitted to go to the jury. I believe, therefore, that the trial court erred in removing the issue of contributory negligence from the jury’s consideration. Perhaps the jury might have decided that the 2% % pay differential, small as it is, was too much for the plaintiffs to have given up, through the exercise of ordinary prudence, in exchange for a safer job. Perhaps the jury would have reached the same verdict it did. We cannot know, but, of course, that is not the question which is presented to us. The determination on the issue of contributory negligence is one to be made neither by us nor by the trial court, but by the jury alone, unless “there is a complete absence of probative facts.” Lavender v. Kurn, 327 US 645, 653. And this rule applies to all negligence alike, whether that of defendants or plaintiffs, however often its application to the conduct of a plaintiff seems to be overlooked or ignored, as I believe it has been in this case, without deferring to the exclusive legislative authority to repeal the defense of contributory negligence. There are many decisions declaring this two-way principle. One from which the majority opinion has quoted at length is Mumma v. Reading Co., 247 F Supp 252, 254 (ED, Penn, 1965). In that case there were two similar accidents covered by separate counts. As to the first accident, the court decided that there was no evidence of contributory negligence and took that issue from the jury. As to the second accident, however, the court recognized that there was some such evidence, “although it was extremely meager,” and felt itself bound, therefore, to apply the rule that “the sufficiency of the evidence to take the issue of contributory negligence to the jury is to be tested by the same standards that are used to test the sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence on the issues of negligence and proximate cause.” See also Schulz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 350 US 523; Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 US 53, 63; and Justice v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 41 Ill App2d 352, 357-358, 191 NE2d 72, and cases there cited. In the Justice case, the court concluded: “Under the facts in this case it is not apparent that there was no possible basis to find some contributory negligence. Thus, it was not a question of law for the court and the instruction (on contributory negligence) should have been given.” (Page 358.) It should be remembered also that the minimum of evidence required as tending to show contributory negligence under the applicable “any evidence” rule, becomes further minimized because the F.E.L.A. test of the sufficiency of such evidence is only whether it played any part, no matter how small, in actually bringing about or causing the plaintiff’s injuries. Page v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 349 F2d 820 (5th Cir, 1965). The principal case relied upon by the majority is the Pennsylvania nisi prius opinion in Mumma v. Reading Co., 247 F Supp 252 (ED, Penn, 1965). I believe that reliance to be misplaced for a number of reasons. As I have mentioned, the Mumma case involved two injuries to the same plaintiff from falling on icy walkways while his boots were soaked with oil which defendant had negligently permitted to remain standing in the work area. The court let the issue of contributory negligence go to the jury as to one of the accidents but not as to the other. Meager evidence of contributory negligence was considered sufficient for the purpose under one count, but the court stated flatly as to the other count: “The record is utterly barren even of a suggestion that the plaintiff could have acted otherwise than he did, short of stopping work entirely.” (Page 254.) This, of course, is by no means true in the case before us, so Mumma is distinguishable at the outset. Furthermore, it is only because of his preliminary decision that there was no evidence of contributory negligence that the judge in Mumma was able to find assumption of risk based upon the authorities cited in his opinion. The majority here overlook that important fact, and also overlook the vital language of the other opinions cited in Mumma which, under the facts of our case, make them applicable to my conclusion rather than to theirs; e. g., Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers, 350 F2d 479, 484-486 (3rd Cir, 1965). As another example, the judge in Mumma, and the majority here, quote a definition of assumed risk from the opinion in Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. R. Co., 220 US 590, 595-596. I shall not quote the whole passage again, but the first part of the key sentence is very important. It states: In the absence of statute taking away the defense, or such obvious dangers- that no ordinarily prudent person would incur them, an employee is held to assume the risk of the ordinary dangers of the occupation into which he is about to enter .... [Emphasis supplied.] Thus the Supreme Court set down two preliminary considerations which would remove a case from application of the assumed risk doctrine. First was statutory removal which had not been enacted at the time of Schlemmer. Second was the existence of contributory negligence — failure to meet the standard of the “ordinarily prudent person.” Both these considerations were open to the judge in Mumma because there was absolutely no evidence of contributory negligence and the plaintiff there “would have been compelled to quit his job” (page 257) in order to avoid the risk. Not so here on either point. After the Supreme Court’s opinion in Schlemmer, the Congress amended the statute to remove assumed risk as a defense, but it did not eliminate the defense of contributory negligence. I consider this highly significant. The result is that even if the same facts might, in a given case, constitute both assumed risk and contributory negligence, the defense of contributory negligence would still be available to the defendant. This proposition is set forth in Restatement, Second, Torts § 496 Ad in comment on the principle of assumption of risk: Relation to contributory negligence. The same conduct on the part of the plaintiff may thus amount to both assumption of risk and contributory negligence, and may subject them to both defenses. His conduct in accepting the risk may be unreasonable and thus negligent, because the danger is out of all proportion to the interest he is seeking to advance, ... In theory the distinction between the two is that assumption of risk rests upon the voluntary consent of the plaintiff to encounter the risk and take his chances, while contributory negligence rests upon his failure to exercise the care of a reasonable man for his own protection. Where the plaintiff voluntarily consents to take an unreasonable chance, there may obviously be both. [Emphasis supplied.] I come, then, to the question of whether there is any authority to support my belief that there is evidence that plaintiffs did not exercise ordinary care for their own safety. And there is. The case of Crowley v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co., 1 Ill App2d 481, 117 NE2d 843, is directly in point. This court held in that case that Crowley’s persistence in working at a job which was causing his illness, when his union seniority entitled him to transfer to a safer job, constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law. In the Crowley case there were three roundhouse employees who sued under F.E.L.A. for occupational dermatitis acquired through contact with diesel oil in the servicing of defendant’s locomotives. After the source of the plaintiffs’ skin trouble had been medically identified, plaintiffs Kern and Criche asserted their union seniority rights to accomplish transfer to a back shop job removed from the handling of diesel oil. Crowley did not. He insisted on continuing in his roundhouse job, although within a very short time he, too, could have demanded such a transfer to the back shop.4  Judgments in favor of Kern and Criche were affirmed by this court but with remittiturs because they were insufficiently supported by proof of monetary damage. The judgment in favor of Crowley was also affirmed but with a much larger remittitur based upon application of the contributory negligence principle, this court having found that the evidence showed him to have been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. The union agreement in the Crowley case was similar to, if not identical with, the one in the case before us. “Crowley could not take another machinist’s position by displacing another man. He could only bid in on a vacancy. Similarly, the defendant could not transfer him without his consent or refuse to allow him to work at any job to which his seniority entitled him.” (Page 488.) In concluding its opinion as to Crowley, this court said: On February 19, 1948, he returned to the job in the roundhouse, which he knew was the cause of his condition and persisted in working there despite the fact that there have been vacancies in the back shop upon which he could have bid successfully by virtue of his seniority. The folly of his course of conduct is made clear by contrasting his case with those of Kern and Criche. They transferred to jobs in the back shop. We are satisfied that when Crowley knowing remained in contact with the source of his occupational disease and failed to use the means provided for protection against the hazards, he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. [Pp, 505-506.] My colleagues attempt to distinguish Crowley on two grounds. First, they say, “an employer can provide a safe place to work for the ordinary individual employee and yet an employee can still contract the dermatitis.” Certainly, when it came to the decision in the Crowley case, the question of individual sensitivities played no part. And' I fail to see any relevance to the case now before us. The second ground of attempted distinction has more apparent basis but fails completely upon close examination. Pages 505 and 506 of the Crowley opinion make it abundantly clear that the reason for the court’s finding of contributory negligence as a matter of law was Crowley’s stubborn refusal to transfer to a safer job after he had learned the cause of his dermatitis. To be sure, in summing up, as set forth in the quotation above, the court mentions, almost parenthetically, that Crowley had also “failed to use the means provided for protection against the hazards.” So the majority in our case grasp at those words and declare the case distinguished, concluding very broadly, indeed, that “if the employer provides safety precautions of which the employee has failed to take advantage, then that employee is contributorily negligent as a matter of law. There were no safety precautions in the instant case.” Now, I would not go near so far in declaring contributory negligence as a matter of law. And the Crowley opinion, I am certain, makes no such pronouncement. The “safety precautions” referred to in the Crowley case consisted of washing facilities and protective creams. The opinion states: None of the plaintiffs used the washing facilities available to them prior to the outbreak of their dermatitis. Crowley washed only at the noon hour. Kern did not wash with soap and water, but used kerosene and waste to clean his hands, a practice which Dr. Schwartz testified was more likely to cause dermatitis than any other. Criche used kerosene and oil to clean his hands, but he never washed himself at work. After the protective creams and ointment and the detergent and scrubbing agent were supplied, Crowley used the protective creams only two days, and used the detergent but not the scrubber. Kern used the protective creams only half a dozen times and he never used the corn-meal scrubber. Criche has never used these preventatives. (Pp 497-498.) It therefore appears that, while all three plaintiffs essentially failed to take advantage of these facilities, Crowley did just about as well as the others. Yet the other two plaintiffs were not found to have been contributorily negligent and Crowley was! This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the only critical evidence on the issue of negligence was Crowley’s failure to bid for a back shop job when he had that option — the same option which was available to plaintiffs in the case at bar. But with what contrary results! This court found Crowley guilty of negligence as a matter of law, whereas the majority in the present case skip clear across the broad area occupied by questions of fact, to “conclude that as a matter of law the plaintiffs were not contributorily negligent.” I would place this case in the extensive middle ground. I maintain that existing law properly applied to the evidence in this record commands that the jury determine the question of negligence as to both plaintiffs and defendant. In my opinion the trial court erred in preempting the jury’s function on the issue of contributory negligence, and we compound the error by not correcting it. Finally, I must also dissent from the majority’s refusal to pass upon the question as to whether we have the power to review the issue of excessiveness of verdicts in F.E.L.A. cases. I believe we do. Smith v. Illinois Cent. R Co., 29 Ill App2d 168, 172 NE2d 803; Deen v. Gulf, Colo. & S. F. Ry. Co., 353 US 925; Gulf, Colo. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Deen (Tex), 312 SW2d 933, 942 (1958), cert den 358 US 874; Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 US 500; Rivera v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 61 NM 314, 299 P2d 1090, 1092-1093; 79 ALR2d 553. I do not consider Bowman v. Illinois Central R. Co., 11 Ill2d 186, 142 NE2d 104, to be in point on this question. Under the instructions given to the jury in this case, I would not be able to say that the damages awarded were unreasonable and excessive. Under proper instructions including the issue of contributory negligence, the verdicts might be somewhat different. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.   See 222 E. Chestnut St. Corp. v. Board of Appeals, 14 Ill2d 190, 193-194, 152 NE2d 465, in which the court found it to be “common knowledge” that automobiles produce fumes which can be injurious to health under some conditions, but refused to take judicial notice of the presence of such conditions in the absence of proof by an expert witness.    Included in his testimony was the following: If there are no hazards of dust or gas or fumes the men don’t wear masks. The question is not whether they are using an acetylene torch, the question as to whether or not masks or respirators or air equipment is advisable depends upon whether or not there is lead in the paint on the metallic surface. It was necessary for me to perform tests to determine whether there was lead in the paint samples and the piece of rod that was submitted to me for analysis. I wouldn’t say that mere visual inspection of the piece of rod or paint samples didn’t indicate any way or the other whether there was lead in those samples. Not all paint contains red lead. Not all orange paint contains red lead. Red lead is still being used as a primer on steel and for structures such as the one that was indicated. It’s partially true that other paint having the same color that is used for the same purpose does not contain lead at all. It’s not entirely true because it’s not exactly the same purpose. [Emphasis supplied.]    Del Baso had worked as a car burner off and on since 1951 and steadily since 1954; Benson part of the time in 1952 and 1953 and regularly after the first week in October 1955; Sybert regularly since early in the year of 1955; and Dalpiaz off and on from 1952 and steadily starting in July of 1955.    The opinion does not disclose the wage differential between the two jobs, but it would seem probable from Crowley’s persistence in the face of illness that the roundhouse job, like the burning job in the instant case, carried a somewhat higher rate of pay.