Erie R. Co. v. Stewart
40 F.2d 855 (1930)
Rule of Law:
When a railroad company voluntarily undertakes a safety precaution, such as employing a watchman at a crossing, and the public becomes aware of and relies on this practice, the company has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining it. An unexplained failure to perform this duty for a person who relies on it can constitute negligence as a matter of law.
Facts:
- Erie Railroad Co. voluntarily employed a watchman at its 123rd street crossing in Cleveland over a long period.
- The plaintiff, Stewart, was aware of this long-standing practice.
- Stewart was a passenger in an automobile truck driven by a fellow employee.
- As the truck approached the railroad crossing, the watchman was not at his post to provide a warning but was inside or just outside his shanty.
- Relying on the absence of the watchman as an assurance of safety, the truck proceeded onto the tracks.
- An Erie Railroad Co. train then struck the truck, causing injuries to Stewart.
Procedural Posture:
- Stewart (plaintiff) sued Erie Railroad Co. (defendant) in the U.S. District Court for injuries received in a train collision.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Stewart.
- The District Court entered a judgment for Stewart based on the jury's verdict.
- Erie Railroad Co., as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Stewart is the appellee.
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 company's unexplained failure to provide a warning from its customary, voluntarily-employed watchman constitute negligence as a matter of law toward a traveler who knew of and relied upon that custom for safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Hickenlooper, J.
Yes. A railroad company's unexplained failure to provide a customary warning from a voluntarily-employed watchman constitutes negligence as a matter of law toward a known reliant traveler. Where a company establishes its own standard of care by employing a watchman, and a traveler is educated into reliance upon it, the company assumes a positive duty. The absence of the watchman acts as an invitation to cross and an assurance of safety. Having led the traveler to rely on this precaution, the company cannot abandon it without warning, as doing so would convert the representation of safety into a trap. In this case, the plaintiff established the custom, his reliance, and the watchman's unexplained failure to warn, creating a prima facie case of negligence that the defendant did not rebut.
Concurring - Tuttle, J.
Yes, but the defendant's negligence is not dependent upon the plaintiff's prior personal knowledge of the custom. A railroad that establishes a public custom of maintaining a watchman owes a duty to the entire traveling public, not just those who can prove prior knowledge. The company is bound to expect that any member of the public approaching the crossing might know of and rely on the warning. The duty arises from the railroad's public representation of safety, and the unexplained failure to perform that duty is a breach owed to any traveler, making the defendant's negligence a matter of law regardless of the plaintiff's specific prior experiences.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that a voluntarily assumed duty, once relied upon by others, must be performed with reasonable care. It is a key decision in the area of torts known as the "reliance doctrine" or "voluntary undertaking doctrine." The ruling establishes that a defendant cannot create a standard of care that induces public reliance and then negligently abandon it without consequence. This precedent influences cases far beyond railroad crossings, applying to any situation where one party voluntarily undertakes to provide a protective service and another party is harmed after relying on the expectation that the service would be provided.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Erie R. Co. v. Stewart (1930)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"