Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co.
Headline: Court reversed and remanded, holding a judge erred by privately sending a supplemental jury instruction and misstating the law, protecting a worker ordered by his foreman to proceed unless the danger was imminent.
Holding: The trial judge erred by giving a supplemental jury instruction in the parties' absence and by instructing that mere knowledge of danger barred recovery; judgment reversed and remanded.
- Requires supplemental jury instructions be given with counsel present.
- Permits workers to rely on foremen’s orders unless danger is imminent.
- Reverses verdict and sends case back for further proceedings.
Summary
Background
The injured worker, an Italian national employed as a general laborer at a Pennsylvania slate quarry, was directed by a foreman to push a wedge beneath a large block of slate. He told the foreman he wanted a tool because he feared injury, but the foreman ordered him to "go ahead." The block fell, crushed his arm, and required amputation. At trial the jury was asked in writing whether the worker was guilty of contributory negligence even though the foreman had told him to push the wedge.
Reasoning
The Court addressed two linked issues: whether the trial judge could send a written supplemental instruction to the jury without the parties or their lawyers present, and whether the instruction the judge gave was legally correct. The Court said parties or counsel must have notice and an opportunity to be present for any supplemental instructions. It also found the instruction legally wrong because it told jurors that the worker’s knowledge of danger alone barred recovery, omitting that under Pennsylvania law a worker may rely on a superior’s orders unless the work was inevitably or immediately dangerous.
Real world impact
Trials must not proceed in secret when juries ask questions: judges should recall juries or give instructions with counsel present so lawyers can object. For workplace injuries, the ruling preserves a worker’s right to rely on a foreman’s order unless the danger was imminent; that factual issue must go to the jury. The judgment for the employer was reversed and the case was sent back for further proceedings.
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?