Owens v. Union Pacific Railroad
Headline: Railroad widow wins reversal as Court bars employer from claiming worker ‘assumed the risk’ as a matter of law and sends the question back to a jury to decide who was at fault.
Holding: The Court reversed the appeals court and held that an employee does not, merely by accepting work, assume the risk of a fellow worker’s negligence; whether he knew and accepted a specific danger is for the jury.
- Prevents employers from escaping liability by claiming general assumed risks from hiring.
- Sends factual questions about accepting danger to juries instead of courts.
- Requires trial factfinding in disputes over safety rules and customs.
Summary
Background
A widow sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act after her husband, a railroad switching-crew foreman, was killed during a yard switching move in 1939. The crew was moving two boxcars and the foreman set a track switch, then began to cross back across the track. Without a bell, whistle, or a warning signal, the cars were “kicked” and ran over him. The trial jury found for the widow, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the foreman had assumed the risk as a matter of law. The employer relied on Company Rule 30 (ring the bell) and on testimony about customary switching practices.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether an employee, simply by taking or keeping a job, is treated as having accepted the ordinary risks of fellow workers’ negligence. It examined the 1939 change to the statute that abolished the old assumption-of-risk defense and the fellow-servant rule. The Court held that assumption of risk cannot be used to defeat recovery unless the employee actually knew of and accepted the particular danger. Because evidence on custom and knowledge conflicted, the Court ruled the question could not be decided as a matter of law and reversed the Court of Appeals, remanding for further proceedings.
Real world impact
The decision means employers cannot automatically avoid liability by saying an employee accepted general workplace risks. Factual disputes about whether a worker knowingly accepted a specific danger belong to a jury. The Court did not resolve whether the company was negligent or whether Rule 30 applied; those issues remain for further proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Reed, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Roberts, dissented, arguing the record showed Rule 30 did not apply and that the customary practice made assumption of risk a valid defense.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?