Court Opinion

ID: 9652853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:33:49.591594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:54.619163
License: Public Domain

LINDLEY, District Judge
(dissenting).
In Paragraph 8 of the complaint plaintiff averred that defendant had been guilty of one or more of the following acts of negligence which directly caused injury to plaintiff’s intestate; that it negligently, (a), caused certain cars to run into deceased; (b), failed to give sufficient notice and warning of the approach of the cars; (c), and caused the cars to be propelled without lights or signal or without a man riding on the head end while plaintiff’s intestate was in the performance of his duties on or near the track. Plaintiff did not charge that defendant had violated its duty to furnish the deceased employee a reasonably safe place in which to work.
As the majority opinion points out, defendant objected to consideration of the latter issue and to instruction by the court in that respect. The trial court, being of the opinion that operation of trains in an unsafe manner constitutes failure to furnish a safe place in which to work, suggested to plaintiff that the complaint might be amended. But plaintiff relied upon the sufficiency of the complaint and proceeded to argue at length to the jury that defendant had been proved guilty of failure to furnish a safe place in which to work. Furthermore the court charged the jury that it was the duty of the employer to use ordinary care and prudence in furnishing deceased a reasonably safe place in which to work. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that one of the important issues submitted to the jury and probably the most important, was whether defendant had negligently failed to furnish a reasonably safe place to work.
I do not understand that this issue was ever properly in this case. The complaint did not charge such negligence, and, though the court did instruct the jury that such was defendant’s duty, yet, there is no evidence in this record to sustain an affirmative finding, even if the issue were presented by the pleadings. In Nordhaus v. Vandalia R. Co., 242 Ill. 166, 89 N.E. 974, 977, where there was an injury to a flagman, the court said: “An injury occurring through negligence which does not render the premises defective or unsafe is not a breach of the duty to keep the place safe. * * * There was no evidence tending to prove that the railroad yard was not physically safe, or that the rails or track were in any respect defective, or that the car or any appliance connected with it or any other car in the train or the engine was out of order or defective or unsafe in any particular.’’ In Peterson v. Chicago & Oak Park El. R. Co., 260 Ill. 280, at page 283, 103 N.E. 252, at page 253, an employee was injured in the course of operation of an elevated railroad. The court said: “Complaint is made that the court gave to the jury the following instruction : ‘It is the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place in which to work.’ As an abstract rule of law the proposition announced in the instruction is unobjectionable, but it has no application to the facts. In neither the pleading nor the evidence is there any indication that the place where the plaintiff was working was unsafe, except the fact that he was hurt there. * * * The rule requires of the master the duty only of keeping the premises physically safe and has no reference to anything else. * * * -It was stated by counsel, in argument, that the failure to furnish a safe place to work was a ground of liability and'was- proved, and *338it is argued here that the instruction was based upon the evidence and applicable to the issues. If this is the view taken by counsel, it can hardly be said that the jury were not likely to be similarly misled by the instruction.” The language of this opinion is directly applicable to the case at bar.
In Keefe v. Armour & Co., 258 Ill. 28, at page 34, 101 N.E. 252, at page 254, Ann. Cas.1914B, 188, the court said: “The charges of the declaration * * * did not include any charge respecting a safe place to work or any breach of duty in that regard ; and there was no evidence to sustain such a charge, if it had been made. The court gave to the jury, at the request of the plaintiff the following instruction: •‘The court instructs the jury that it is the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to furnish the servant with a reasonably safe place to work. * * * ’ The rule stated was correct; but it' relates to the condition of premises, buildings, and things which properly constitute a place for work. The rule is illustrated by various cases. * * * The jury might very well have applied to the case the instruction concerning a reasonably safe place to work and considered that there was a breach of-that duty; and the verdict is as readily referable to that instruction as to any other statement of the law made by the court.” In Fisher v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 290 Ill. 49, 124 N.E. 831, one count alleged that defendant failed to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work. In consequence thereof the deceased was injured and killed. The court found that there was no evidence to support this count. After discussing Keefe v. Armour & Co., 258 Ill. 28, 101 N.E. 252, Ann.Cas.1914B, 188, and Peterson v. Chicago & Oak Park Elevated Railroad Co., 260 Ill. 280, 103 N.E. 252, it said, “There was no evidence that the elevated structure itself, the rails, ties, switches, and surroundings, were in any respect defective or could have been made safer in view of the purposes for which they were designed. The rules require of the master the duty only of keeping the premises physically safe and have no reference to anything else. Here there was no evidence of any .defect in thg premises. There was nothing unsafe in the place nor any negligence in regard to it.” [290 Ill. 49, 124 N.E. 834.] See also Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Koske, 279 U.S. 7, 10, 49 S.Ct. 202, 73 L.Ed. 578; Patton v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 658, 21 S.Ct. 275, 45 L.Ed. 361; Washington & G. R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U.S. 554, 570, 10 S.Ct. 1044, 34 L.Ed. 235; Hunsaker’s Adm’x v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 185 Ky. 686, 215 S.W. 552, 28 A.L. R. 117; Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 149 Iowa 496, 128 N.W. 932, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 766.
I think the evidence here reflects no proof of an unreasonably unsafe place to work. It seems to me that defendant has never had a trial upon the true issue, namely that alleged in plaintiff’s declaration of negligent operation of cars and failure to keep look-out or give a warning. Indeed, the trial proceeded upon a false issue unsupported by any evidence. I would reverse the judgment for a new trial.
I might add that a question occurs’ to me in this connection upon which, perhaps, we ought to rule. It has been repeatedly asserted by the Supreme Court that all questions involved in employers’ liability cases are to be determined by a federal rule established by the federal courts. This is clearly true as to strictly federal questions, such as what constitutes interstate commerce; but since Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, can the federal courts establish a yardstick of their own, without respect to the substantive law of the state, as to what constitutes negligence ? Congress did not attempt to define negligence; it created no standard, no yardstick of any character. If we follow Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, to its ultimate logical result, are we not bound in defining negligence .to give heed to the substantive law of Illinois ? It is because of this question that I have accentuated the Illinois authorities bearing upon the duty to furnish a safe place in which to work. It seems to me the Supreme Court of Illinois correctly answered this question when it said, in Woods v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 306 Ill. 217, at page 223, 137 N.E. 806, at page 808: “If there was any liability *339shown by the evidence, it was under the federal Employers’ Liability Act, upon which the five counts of the original declaration were framed. That act has superseded the laws of the state as to the relation between common carriers and their employees engaged in interstate commerce. It fixes liability for negligence and has eliminated some defenses recognized by state laws, but it erects no standard of what shall constitute negligence. That is to be determined by the law of the jurisdiction, and if negligence is proved the statute is to be applied.”