Davis v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
788 F.2d 1260 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is negligent if the burden of precautions is less than the probability of an accident occurring multiplied by the gravity of the resulting injury (B < PL), even if the plaintiff was also negligent. The complete defense of assumption of risk is no longer available in jurisdictions that have adopted comparative negligence.
Facts:
- Lonny Davis, an experienced railroad car inspector employed by Trailer Train Company, was injured while inspecting cars in Conrail's marshaling yard.
- Davis crawled under a train to inspect it without posting blue flags, which indicate work is being done on the train.
- The train crew moved the train without warning, and Davis's legs were caught beneath the wheels, resulting in the loss of one leg and part of his other foot.
- Davis sued Conrail for negligence, and Conrail sought contribution from Trailer Train for failing to instruct Davis on proper safety procedures.
- A jury found Conrail negligent, assessed damages at $3 million, but reduced the award to $2 million due to Davis's one-third contributory negligence. The jury also found Trailer Train one-third responsible.
Procedural Posture:
- Davis filed a personal injury lawsuit against Conrail in federal district court (the trial court), based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Conrail filed a third-party claim against Davis's employer, Trailer Train, seeking contribution for any damages.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Davis.
- The jury assessed Davis's total damages at $3 million but found him one-third at fault, reducing his award to $2 million.
- In the third-party action, the jury found Trailer Train was also one-third at fault and ordered it to reimburse Conrail for one-third of the $2 million damages paid to Davis.
- Conrail and Trailer Train, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was Conrail negligent for failing to take precautions, such as sounding the train's horn, before moving the train, even though Davis was also negligent in failing to follow the blue flag rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner (J.)
Yes, Conrail was negligent. Applying the Hand formula, the burden of sounding the train's horn was trivial compared to the probability and gravity of potential injury, particularly the loss of a limb. Despite the blue flag rule, a jury could reasonably find that Conrail should have anticipated the possibility of someone being in a position of danger and taken the simple precaution of sounding the horn. The replacement of contributory negligence with comparative negligence means assumption of risk is no longer a complete defense. There was also some evidence of Trailer Train's negligence in failing to provide Davis with safety instructions.
Analysis:
The case emphasizes the application of the Hand formula in determining negligence, considering the severity of potential injuries. It also addresses contributory versus comparative negligence and the abolishment of assumption of risk as a complete defense. The decision highlights the importance of workplace safety measures and potential liability for failing to implement them, even when the injured party was also negligent.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Consolidated Rail Corp.