McDermott v. Severe
Headline: Court affirms award to a child run over at a street-car plank crossing, finding the motorman’s actions and crossing conditions supported liability and letting the damages verdict stand for the injured boy.
Holding: The Court affirmed the lower courts, holding that reasonable jurors could find the motorman negligent in managing the street car and that the company was liable, so the damages verdict for the injured six-year-old stands.
- Confirms rail operators can be liable for failing to control cars around children.
- Allows damages for amputation, future pain, and pecuniary losses from the injury.
- Makes juries weigh children’s habits at crossings when judging operator negligence.
Summary
Background
A six-year-ten-month-old boy was badly injured when a street railway car ran over his leg at a plank crossing while he and two brothers waited to meet their parents. The crossing had a space between the rail and the plank about two to nearly three inches wide. The youngest boy’s foot was first caught; the injured boy tried to help and then became trapped, requiring amputation below the knee. The family sued the railway company, and a jury returned special findings of negligence in both the crossing’s condition and the car’s operation.
Reasoning
The main question was whether reasonable jurors could find the motorman negligent in operating the car just before the accident. The record shows conflicting testimony: the motorman said he saw the boys 300–400 feet away, sounded his gong about 150 feet out, and began braking at 30–35 feet; other witnesses said boys waved and called when the car was 50–60 feet away and that the car stopped with a sudden jolt. The Supreme Court explained that where fair-minded people could differ, negligence is for the jury. Given the evidence about the motorman’s view, the boys’ behavior, and the habit of children playing at the crossing, the Court held the issue was properly left to the jury and that the judgment should stand.
Real world impact
The ruling affirms that operators must consider children’s predictable behavior at crossings and cannot rely solely on sounding an alarm. It lets stand a damages award for loss of limb, pain, and future pecuniary loss, and it confirms that juries may weigh both the construction of crossings and the motorman’s conduct when assigning liability.
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?