Baltimore & O. R. v. Henthorne
1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1828, 9 Ohio F. Dec. 383, 73 F. 634 (1896)
Rule of Law:
An employer owes a non-delegable duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting and retaining competent employees; notice of an employee's incompetence possessed by any supervisor with the authority to suspend that employee constitutes notice to the corporation itself.
Facts:
- The Plaintiff was employed as a new brakeman for the Defendant railroad company.
- Harrison, an engineer employed by the Defendant, operated the train on which the Plaintiff was working.
- Harrison had a general reputation for being an habitual and excessive drinker.
- While operating the train, Harrison was intoxicated, and this condition caused an accident resulting in injury to the Plaintiff.
- Various mid-level agents of the Defendant, such as the yardmaster and master mechanic, possessed the authority to temporarily suspend engineers for misconduct.
- These agents knew, or through proper supervision should have known, that Harrison was unfit for duty due to his drinking habits.
- Despite this constructive or actual knowledge, the Defendant retained Harrison in his position as an engineer prior to the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plaintiff brakeman sued the Defendant railroad in the federal trial court to recover damages for personal injuries.
- During the trial, the Defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
- The trial court denied the motion and admitted evidence regarding the engineer's general reputation for drunkenness.
- The jury found in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded damages.
- The Defendant appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals, assigning twenty-four errors including challenges to the jury instructions and the admission of reputation evidence.
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 corporation violate its duty of care by retaining an habitually intoxicated engineer, and is the knowledge of lower-level supervisors regarding the engineer's unfitness imputable to the corporation?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Taft
Yes. The court affirmed the judgment below, holding that a master is liable for injuries caused by an incompetent servant if the master failed to exercise reasonable care in retaining him. The court reasoned that the duty to select and retain competent employees is a positive, non-delegable obligation of the master, similar to the duty to provide safe machinery. The court rejected the Defendant's argument that knowledge of Harrison's drunkenness had to reach high-level superintendents to bind the company. Instead, the court established that any officer or agent with the power to suspend an employee—such as a yardmaster or train master—is a proper agent to receive notice of incompetence. Therefore, the negligence of these supervisors in failing to address Harrison's alcoholism was the negligence of the company itself. The court also held that evidence of general reputation was competent to prove the company's negligence.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant development in labor law and the 'fellow servant' doctrine. While the common law generally prevented employees from suing employers for injuries caused by co-workers (fellow servants), Taft carved out a robust exception: the 'vice-principal' theory regarding notice. By ruling that the duty to retain competent staff is non-delegable, the court treated human staffing with the same strict liability standards as physical machinery. Furthermore, by broadening the definition of who represents the company (anyone with the power to suspend), the court prevented large corporations from shielding themselves behind bureaucratic layers to avoid liability for workplace safety.
