Alderman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.
1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2676, 113 F. Supp. 881 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier is not liable for injuries to a passenger traveling on a free pass with a liability waiver caused by ordinary negligence. To overcome the waiver, the passenger must prove the carrier's conduct was wilful or wanton, which requires showing the carrier had a conscious awareness of a specific, existing condition that would likely or probably cause injury and acted with reckless indifference to that consequence.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was traveling on one of defendant’s trains for an intrastate journey in West Virginia.
- She was traveling on a free trip pass, not as a fare-paying passenger.
- The pass contained a printed condition stating, 'I hereby assume all risk of personal injury and loss of or of damage to property from whatever causes arising, and release the company from liability therefor.'
- Plaintiff sustained personal injuries when the train derailed near Adrian, West Virginia.
- The derailment was caused by a break in a rail due to a transverse fissure, which is an internal defect not visible upon external inspection.
- The defendant had performed a visual inspection of the specific rail on the day before the accident, and the defect was not discovered.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to recover for personal injuries.
- The original complaint alleged the defendant was negligent.
- After a pre-trial conference, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the defendant's conduct was wilful or wanton.
- Defendant, supported by affidavits, moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact to support the claim of wilful or wanton conduct.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a railroad's use of old and obsolescent rails, without actual knowledge of a specific, non-visible defect that causes a derailment, constitute wilful or wanton conduct sufficient to overcome a liability waiver on a free travel pass?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Chief Judge.
No. A railroad's general use of old rails amounts to a claim of negligence, not wilful or wanton conduct, and is therefore barred by the liability waiver in the plaintiff's free pass. The federal standard, which is persuasive, holds that while a carrier may contract against liability for negligent injury to a free pass holder, it cannot relieve itself of liability for wilful or wanton acts for reasons of public policy. The court, adopting the West Virginia definition, defined wilful or wanton conduct as requiring a conscious awareness that injury would likely or probably result from one's conduct, coupled with a reckless indifference to the consequences. Here, the plaintiff alleged the defendant used old rails as a cost-saving measure, which is an argument for negligence. To establish wilfulness, the plaintiff would have needed to show that the defendant knew of the specific fissure in the rail, knew it would probably cause a derailment, and intentionally ran the train over it anyway. Since the defendant's uncontroverted affidavits showed the defect was internal, not visible, and unknown to them, the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to wilful or wanton conduct.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the significant legal protection afforded to common carriers by liability waivers on gratuitous passes. It establishes a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, sharply distinguishing between negligence (even gross negligence, like a business decision to use older equipment) and the much more culpable 'wilful or wanton' standard. The ruling clarifies that wilful conduct requires proof of the defendant's subjective state of mind—a conscious knowledge of a specific, probable danger, and an intentional disregard for it. This makes recovery for passengers with such waivers exceedingly difficult unless they can produce direct or strong circumstantial evidence of the carrier's actual knowledge of the specific defect that caused the harm.
