Wilkerson v. McCarthy

Background

The injured person was a railroad switchman who fell into a wheel pit in a Denver coach yard while walking on a narrow 22-inch “permanent board” that served as a walkway when covers were removed. He sued the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (the law that lets railroad employees sue their employer for negligent safety). The railroad argued the switchman ignored safety chains; the trial judge directed a verdict for the railroad and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court looked at undisputed facts and conflicting testimony about whether employees other than pit workers habitually used the board after safety chains and posts were put up. The Court held reasonable jurors could find the board was commonly used and was likely greasy or oily, creating a factual dispute about the railroad’s care. It stressed that under the statute an employee’s carelessness may reduce but does not wholly bar recovery, so the question belonged to a jury.

Real world impact

The decision sends the case back for a jury to decide liability and reinforces that factual disputes about workplace practices and unsafe conditions in railroad yards should be resolved by jurors, not by judges alone. Injured railroad workers keep a meaningful chance to have juries weigh evidence about employer safety; employers may face jury scrutiny where open, long-standing workplace habits suggest risks.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. One concurrence warned against taking cases that merely reweigh facts, while another emphasized restoring the jury’s role and the historical purpose of the employers’ law. Two dissenters argued the evidence was too weak and that the directed verdict should have been affirmed because the chains and barriers showed reasonable protection.