Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Bower
Headline: Court upholds injured engineer’s verdict, allowing a jury to find the railroad negligent for keeping dangerous glass lubricators on high-pressure locomotives and causing a severe workplace injury.
Holding: The Court affirmed the state-court judgment for the injured locomotive engineer, holding the evidence was sufficient to let a jury decide whether the railroad negligently kept glass lubricators on a high-pressure engine.
- Allows injured railroad workers to have a jury decide employer negligence over equipment choices.
- Requires employers to replace equipment shown by experience to be unsafe on high-pressure engines.
- Limits assumption-of-risk defense when the worker lacked notice of employer negligence.
Summary
Background
An experienced locomotive engineer lost an eye when a glass tube in a Nathan lubricator burst while he was preparing his engine at night in November 1910. The engine was a high-pressure Class R with 190 pounds boiler pressure. The Nathan lubricator used three tubular glass sight tubes surrounded by a perforated metal shield; those tubes sometimes broke when new, when suddenly heated, or after weeks of wear. A newer, unbreakable Bull’s Eye lubricator had been introduced three to four years earlier and was being installed on many engines.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the railroad was negligent in keeping the older tubular-glass lubricator on a high-pressure engine after experience showed it was unsafe. The Court applied the rule that an employer must supply appliances reasonably safe and suitable, though not necessarily the newest model. Given evidence that the company had begun installing the safer Bull’s Eye, had placed them first on high-pressure engines, and that many Nathan glasses had broken in use, the Court said a jury could reasonably find the railroad knew the Nathan type was unsafe on 190-pound engines and yet delayed replacement. The Court also found the engineer did not assume the extra risk from his employer’s possible negligence because he had no notice the employer had been negligent.
Real world impact
The Court affirmed the state-court judgment for the injured engineer and left to a jury the question of employer negligence. The decision focuses on whether employers must replace equipment when experience shows it is unsafe for the conditions in which it is used.
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?