Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

1943-02-01

Headline: Railroad worker's death suit revived as Court reverses lower courts, bars the employer's 'assumption of risk' defense (where employers claim workers accepted dangers) and sends negligence questions back to a jury.

Holding: The Court held that the 1939 amendment abolished the employer’s "assumption of risk" defense and that disputed negligence questions must go to a jury rather than be decided for the railroad.

Real World Impact:

Prevents railroads using 'assumption of risk' to bar employee recovery.
Sends negligence disputes about workplace dangers to juries for fact-finding.
Makes it easier for injured railroad workers to seek damages under FELA.

Topics: workplace safety, railroad injuries, employer liability, jury trials

Summary

Background

A widow sued a railroad after her husband, John Lewis Tiller, a railroad policeman who inspected car seals, was struck and killed in an unlighted switching yard on March 20, 1940. He stood between two tracks with only about three feet, seven and a half inches of room while two trains moved; one backing train had no rear lights on the side facing him. The family claimed the railroad was negligent and failed to provide a safe place to work. The railroad relied on contributory negligence and the old "assumption of risk" defense. The trial court took the case from the jury and entered judgment for the railroad, which the court of appeals affirmed.

Reasoning

The central question was what effect the 1939 amendment to the Federal Employers' Liability Act had on the employer's ability to use "assumption of risk." The Court found that the amendment abolished that defense whenever an injury resulted in whole or in part from carrier negligence. The Justices held Congress did not mean to let employers avoid liability by renaming the old defense "non-negligence." Because the factual issues about the railroad's negligence and any employee fault were disputed, the Court found they should not have been decided by the judge and must be submitted to a jury.

Real world impact

The decision prevents railroads from using the old assumption-of-risk label to bar recovery when their employees may have been negligent. It requires that disputed questions about employer care and employee conduct be decided by juries under comparative-negligence principles. The case was reversed and sent back for further proceedings consistent with that rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Frankfurter concurred, stressing the ambiguous meaning of "assumption of risk" and noting employers still are not liable for risks they reasonably cannot eliminate.