Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Co. v. Hall
1914 U.S. LEXIS 1463, 232 U.S. 94, 34 S. Ct. 229 (1914)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee does not assume the risk of injury arising from a defect caused by an employer's negligence unless the employee is aware of the defect and its resulting danger, or unless the defect and danger are so plainly observable that the employee is presumed to have known of them. The employee is not charged with a duty to exercise ordinary care to discover such dangers.
Facts:
- Hall was employed as a chainman by the Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Company.
- As part of his job, Hall used a three-wheeled gasoline car, or 'velocipede,' furnished by the Railway Company to travel along the railway line.
- On April 23, 1907, Hall was a passenger on the velocipede, which was being operated by another employee, Ryan.
- While traveling at 8 to 12 miles per hour, the car suddenly derailed.
- Hall was thrown from the car and sustained severe injuries.
- The derailment was allegedly caused by a worn and cracked flange on the car's third wheel, a defect that a reasonable inspection would have discovered.
Procedural Posture:
- Hall sued the Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Company in a territorial district court of Arizona for personal injuries.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Hall for $10,000.
- While the Railway Company's motion for a new trial was pending, Hall voluntarily remitted $5,000 of the verdict.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial and entered a final judgment for Hall in the amount of $5,000.
- The Railway Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona.
- The territorial Supreme Court, the highest court in the territory, affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Railway Company then sought review of the territorial Supreme Court's decision from the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 employee assume the risk of injury from a defect attributable to an employer's negligence if the employee could have discovered the defect by exercising ordinary care, even if the defect was not actually known or plainly observable to the employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Pitney
No. An employee does not assume the risk of dangers arising from an employer's negligence merely because they could have been discovered through the exercise of ordinary care. The employee has a right to assume the employer has provided a safe place to work and safe appliances. To be charged with assumption of risk for a defect caused by employer negligence, the employee must have become aware of the defect, or it must be so plainly observable that they can be presumed to have known of it. Furthermore, it must be shown that the employee knew the defect endangered their safety, or the danger was so obvious that a prudent person would have appreciated it. The trial court's instruction that 'the true test is not in the exercise of ordinary care to discover dangers, by the employé, but whether the defect is known or plainly observable by him' was correct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the assumption of risk doctrine as it applies to employer negligence, shifting the focus from the employee's duty of care to the employer's duty to provide safe equipment. It establishes that an employee's failure to actively inspect for hidden dangers does not absolve an employer of liability. By requiring that a defect be 'known or plainly observable,' the Court strengthens protections for employees and limits a common employer defense in workplace injury cases. This standard distinguishes between inherent occupational risks and those created by the employer's failure to maintain a safe environment, holding the employer accountable for the latter unless the employee knowingly accepted the specific, observable danger.
