Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

1959-12-14

Headline: Nighttime crossing flagman injured by a drunk driver: Court affirmed that evidence was too weak to hold the railroad negligent, blocking the worker’s $25,000 recovery.

Holding: The Court held that the evidence was so thin that a judge reasonably could conclude the railroad’s negligence did not play any part in the flagman’s injury, and affirmed the lower court’s reversal.

Real World Impact:

Affirms that employers are not insurers against third-party criminal acts.
Requires concrete evidence of repeated hazards before a jury can find employer negligence.
Makes it harder for railroad workers to recover without proof of foreseeable dangers.

Topics: workplace safety, railroad employee injuries, third-party negligence, foreseeability

Summary

Background

A railroad crossing watchman who had worked seven years at a busy Akron intersection was struck one midnight by an intoxicated driver while flagging traffic for a passing train. He sued the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act claiming the crossing was not a reasonably safe place to work. A jury awarded him $25,000 after finding the railroad negligent “in part.” The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, and the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to let a jury decide negligence. It applied the rule that a judge’s review asks only whether negligence by the employer could have played any part in the injury. The Court concluded the proof was too thin. There were no formal complaints to the railroad and no clear testimony of prior similar accidents apart from one witness’s brief remark about cars “jumping the gun.” Given the long period without accidents and the scant proof, the Court found the railroad’s negligence could not reasonably be said to have contributed to the injury and affirmed the reversal.

Real world impact

The decision emphasizes that employers are not insurers and that courts may require concrete evidence of prior hazards or foreseeable dangers before a jury can find employer negligence for third-party criminal acts. Workers injured by reckless motorists will have difficulty recovering absent stronger proof that the employer should have foreseen and guarded against the danger.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing the crossing layout, heavy traffic, the flagman’s many duties, and evidence that cars had “jumped the gun” could reasonably let a jury find the employer should have taken more safety measures.