Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Behymer

Background

A brakeman who had worked for the railroad about three months was ordered to climb onto cars standing on a siding to let off the brakes so the engine could move them to the main track. The tops of the cars were icy. The engine picked up the cars, moved them to the main track, and stopped suddenly. The jerk upset the brakeman’s balance and his trousers caught on a projecting nail in the running board, throwing him between the cars. The car belonged to another road but was in the charge of the defendant railroad. A Texas statute also provided that negligence by a fellow worker was not a defense to recovery.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the risk of this accident was one the employee assumed or whether the employer had failed in its duty of reasonable care. The Court explained that juries must decide whether the train was handled with ordinary care — the standard of what a reasonably prudent person would do. The Court rejected the idea that the chance of such an accident was automatically an assumed risk. It noted that some bumping on freight trains is expected, but stopping sharply when workers are on top of icy cars can be negligent. The projecting nail increased the danger. Because the railroad had custody of the car and the jury could find a reasonable inspection would have discovered the nail, the Court found the trial court’s instructions proper.

Real world impact

The decision lets a jury hold an employer responsible when known hazardous conditions and a lack of reasonable inspection or care cause injury. It upholds instructions about assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and the worker’s duty to accept reasonable medical treatment, and it affirms the jury’s verdict.