Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
372 U.S. 108 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), an employer is liable for an employee's injuries if the employer's negligence played any part, however slight, in causing the injury. The employer need only foresee that its negligence could result in some harm, not the specific chain of events or the full, improbable extent of the harm that ultimately occurs.
Facts:
- For many years, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (B&O) maintained a stagnant pool of water along its right-of-way.
- The pool contained dead rats, pigeons, and other vermin, and was known to attract insects.
- B&O was aware of the fetid condition of the pool.
- On August 10, 1954, John Gallick, a B&O foreman, was working near this pool.
- While near the pool, Gallick felt a bite on his leg from what he believed was a large insect.
- The wound from the bite subsequently became infected.
- The infection worsened progressively, spreading throughout Gallick's body and eventually necessitating the amputation of both his legs.
- Though the exact etiology was unclear, medical professionals diagnosed his condition as secondary to an insect bite.
Procedural Posture:
- John Gallick filed suit against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, a state trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned answers to a series of special interrogatories.
- Based on the jury's special verdict, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Gallick.
- The railroad, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the evidence of causation was insufficient to support the verdict.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio, the state's highest court, declined to grant further appellate review.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), is a railroad liable for an employee's severe injuries resulting from an insect bite when the railroad's negligence in maintaining a vermin-infested pool created the risk of a bite, even if the railroad could not foresee the specific chain of events or the extreme severity of the resulting injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. Under FELA, a railroad is liable because reasonable foreseeability of harm is satisfied if the employer's negligence foreseeably created the risk of some harm, not the specific chain of events or the full extent of the resulting injury. The Court of Appeals improperly invaded the jury's function by finding the evidence of causation insufficient. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence—including the presence of insects near the pool and expert testimony—for the jury to reasonably conclude that the railroad's negligence in maintaining the pool played a part in causing Gallick's injury. Furthermore, the jury's findings were not fatally inconsistent; a finding that the railroad could not foresee the specific, severe outcome (amputation) does not negate its underlying negligence. It is a well-established tort principle that a defendant who commits a tort is liable for all consequential damages, even those that are unforeseeable or unexpectedly severe.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
The Court should not have heard this case as it involves no unsettled questions of federal law. On the merits, the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Moreover, the Ohio Court of Appeals' conclusion that the evidence of causation was insufficient was a reasonable assessment of the record, and the Supreme Court is merely second-guessing the state court's judgment. This case demonstrates the inadequacy of ordinary negligence law for modern industrial accidents, a problem that should be solved by the legislature, not the courts.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart and Justice Goldberg
No, a new trial should have been ordered. The jury's explicit finding in Interrogatory No. 20 that the railroad had no reason to anticipate a 'mishap or an injury' is irreconcilably inconsistent with its finding in Interrogatory No. 16 that the railroad was negligent. Since foreseeability of harm is an essential element of FELA negligence, these conflicting findings cancel each other out and void the entire verdict. The majority's attempt to 'reconcile the irreconcilable' by reinterpreting the jury's clear answer on foreseeability is a 'Procrustean exercise' that improperly invades the province of the jury. The correct course of action when a jury's findings on essential issues are in direct conflict is to order a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the broad scope of liability for employers under FELA. It solidifies the extremely low causation standard from Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., requiring only that the employer's negligence played 'any part' in the injury. More importantly, it clarifies the foreseeability standard by effectively applying the 'eggshell plaintiff' rule, holding that as long as the initial type of harm (e.g., an insect bite) is a foreseeable result of the negligence, the employer is liable for the full, even catastrophic, extent of the ensuing injuries. This precedent makes it substantially easier for injured railroad employees to recover for unusual or improbable consequences stemming from an employer's breach of duty.
Unlock the full brief for Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.