Healy v. Central R.
1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2302, 35 F. Supp. 591 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), to establish employer negligence for an injury caused by a known, permanent workplace condition, the employee must provide evidence that the employer violated a customary or approved industry standard for the construction or maintenance of that condition.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was a freight conductor who had been employed by the defendant for nineteen years and was familiar with the Communipaw rail yard.
- A permanent 2-inch steam pipe, necessary for the operation of a float bridge, ran between two tracks in the yard.
- The plaintiff knew of the pipe's existence and its function, which required it to move vertically with the tide.
- On previous occasions, the plaintiff had observed the pipe projecting about half an inch above the surrounding cinders and ash fill.
- On June 18, 1939, while moving quickly between tracks to board a moving train car, the plaintiff fell, and his hand was run over by a train wheel.
- After the fall, the plaintiff observed that the pipe was clear of the ground by about half an inch, which was higher than he had seen it before.
- The plaintiff did not feel his foot strike the pipe but concluded after falling that he must have tripped over it.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in U.S. District Court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $4,500.
- The defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict in its favor.
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, is a railroad employer negligent for providing an unsafe workplace when a permanent steam pipe, known to an employee, projects slightly higher from the ground than the employee had previously observed, without evidence that the employer violated a customary industry practice for maintaining such a pipe?
Opinions:
Majority - Byers, District Judge
No. Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, a railroad employer is not negligent for providing an unsafe workplace merely because a known, permanent fixture projects slightly higher than an employee was used to. To establish negligence for a known condition, an employee must provide evidence that the employer violated a customary or approved industry practice for constructing or maintaining that fixture. The plaintiff's claim was based on the surmise that he tripped over a pipe he knew was present and whose function required it to move. Without evidence of a violated industry standard for the pipe's maintenance, the minor change in its height was insufficient to prove the defendant provided an unsafe place to work. This situation is distinct from cases involving temporary and unknown obstacles, where an employee would not have been on notice of the hazard.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the evidentiary burden on an employee in a FELA claim involving a known, permanent workplace hazard. The court establishes that an employee cannot prove negligence simply by showing a minor, foreseeable change in a familiar condition. By requiring evidence of a deviation from a 'customary and sanctioned practice,' the decision heightens the plaintiff's burden, often necessitating expert testimony on industry standards to succeed in such cases. This precedent makes it more difficult for employees to prevail on claims involving long-standing and understood workplace conditions without demonstrating a specific failure by the employer to adhere to established safety norms.
