Court Opinion

ID: 9442497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:49:41.110731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:06.819680
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Respectfully dissenting, I merely outline the reasons why I cannot concur. In the trial of this case issues of fact were presented : Whether the plaintiff had formerly •supervised temporary, as distinguished from permanent or major, repairs of trestles, and if so, the extent of experience; whether the repairs in question were temporary or major; whether the repairs in question were such as were ordinarily required to be performed by a section foreman in the general performance of his employment, or even contemplated by the rules of the defendant; whether section foremen in the customary discharge of their regular duties are required to do more than walk across and supervise maintenance and repair of the track top of the trestle; whether in consideration of all of the circumstances the employee was directed to work in a place that was not, as to him, safe. (Whatever may be its materiality, I conclude from the evidence, contrary to the majority, that the plaintiff undertook the work under protest and compulsion- of superior authority. In any event, there was a question for the jury as to this.) It is not disputed that the work of a bridge foreman is more hazardous than that of a section foreman, and that generally before employees are made bridge foremen they must have had a year or two years experience on bridge gangs. The bridge foreman and section foreman are considered in different employment classifications by the defendant. A section foreman, even with more years service, •can not “roll” a bridge foreman. The question in this case can not be solved completely by determining alone the extent of the former experience of the section fore*717man, or whether he exercised proper care to avoid falling from the trestle after he began working in the capacity of a bridge foreman. These solutions might present no more than contributory negligence, not at all fatal in this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The real question is whether a determination of all the factual issues in accord with plaintiff’s contentions, together with the unquestioned facts, would in law authorize a jury to find that the defendant’s conduct failed to meet the standard of ordinary care. Thus, to find that an ordinarily prudent person, with the knowledge and authority of the defendant’s agent, would not have ordered this section foreman out on the trestle to assume the duties of a bridge foreman. I think so. This fact the jury found, as evidenced by the verdict returned. The judgment should be affirmed.1

. Bailey v. Central Vermont Ry., 319 U.S. 350, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 87 L.Ed. 1444.