Erie Railroad v. Purucker

Background

Byron Marietta was a short‑term section (track) worker for the Erie Railroad who was directed where to report for work. While walking to the assigned spot on a double track, a passenger train passed on the south track, and Marietta stepped onto the north track to avoid it. An engine that had been detached and was running backward on the north track struck him without giving any signal or warning. Marietta died during the lawsuit and his administratrix continued the claim against the railroad under state law.

Reasoning

The railroad argued that because it carried interstate traffic and Marietta was a track worker, the federal Employers’ Liability Act applied and the judge should have told the jury that Marietta “assumed the risk” by walking on the tracks. The Court assumed, without deciding, that the federal law might apply but said the two proposed instructions were too broad. They left out key facts the jury had to consider — such as whether the danger was so obvious that a reasonable person would have seen it and whether any warning was given. The Court explained that an instruction about assumption of risk must include those elements, and that the company’s second request was more appropriate to the separate defense of contributory negligence.

Real world impact

The ruling means courts should not give broad assumption‑of‑risk jury instructions when a worker lacked warning or could not reasonably appreciate the danger. Employers cannot rely on a blanket instruction without proof that the worker knew and appreciated the specific risk. The opinion did not finally decide whether federal law applied here, only that these particular instructions were properly refused.