Farwell v. Boston & Worcester Rail Road Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
45 Mass. 49 (1842) (1842)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer is not liable for injuries sustained by an employee that are caused by the negligence of another employee (a fellow servant) engaged in the same common enterprise. Employees are presumed to assume the ordinary risks of their employment, which includes the risk of negligence by their fellow servants.

Facts:

The plaintiff was employed by the defendants, a railroad company, as an engineer.
The defendants also employed another person to operate a railroad switch.
The engineer and the switch-tender were co-workers for the same company, working toward the common purpose of operating the railroad.
The switch-tender negligently failed to change a switch as required.
As a direct result of the switch-tender's negligence, an accident occurred.
The plaintiff sustained a severe injury in the accident.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff, an engineer, sued his employer, the railroad company, in a court of first instance for injuries sustained on the job.
The defendant company denied the fact of its switch-tender's negligence.
By consent of the parties, the fact of negligence was assumed without a jury trial in order to present a pure question of law to the full court.
The case was brought before the state's highest court to decide whether, assuming the facts as stated were true, the employer was legally liable.

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 an employer have a legal responsibility to compensate an employee for injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow employee when both are engaged in a common enterprise?

Opinions:

Majority - Shaw, C. J.

No. An employer is not liable to an employee for an injury resulting from the negligence of a fellow employee. The legal doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds a master liable for a servant's negligence, applies only to third parties or strangers, not to fellow employees. The relationship between an employer and employee is governed by their contract, whether express or implied. When an individual enters into employment, they implicitly assume the natural and ordinary risks associated with that service, and the risk of injury from a fellow servant's negligence is considered one of those ordinary risks. The employee's compensation is presumed to be adjusted to account for these risks. Public policy supports this conclusion, as employees are in a better position than the employer to observe the conduct of their colleagues and can report misconduct or leave the service if safety is compromised. This framework encourages vigilance among employees, thereby promoting overall safety more effectively than a rule that would indemnify them for co-worker negligence. This principle applies regardless of whether the employees work in different departments, as the master's exemption from liability stems from the nature of the implied employment contract, not the proximity of the workers.

Analysis:

This case establishes the seminal 'fellow-servant rule,' which became a cornerstone of 19th-century American tort and labor law. The doctrine created a significant barrier for employees seeking compensation for workplace injuries, effectively shifting the financial risk of industrial accidents from employers to the workers themselves. The rule heavily favored emerging industries during a period of rapid expansion and remained dominant until the early 20th century, when it was largely abrogated by the passage of workers' compensation statutes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Farwell v. Boston & Worcester Rail Road Corp. (1842)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature