Jacob Norton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc
1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11565, 412 F.2d 112 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania tort law, negligence can be established not only by the manner in which an act is performed but also by the choice of method for that act. An employer may be held liable under respondeat superior for an employee's actions, even if they deviate from instructions, so long as the actions were performed in the course of employment to further the employer's business.
Facts:
- The plaintiff-appellant worked as a handyman for a supper club in Erie, Pennsylvania.
- The defendant-appellee, Railway Express, delivered a 226-pound barrel of meat to the club.
- Upon arrival, the plaintiff requested that the defendant's deliveryman unload the cargo down a stairway into the cellar.
- The deliveryman and the plaintiff decided to place the barrel on a wheeled dolly and lower it step-by-step down the stairs.
- The plaintiff positioned himself on the steps below the barrel to hold its bottom, while the deliveryman held the top.
- During the descent, the barrel slipped and fell, landing on top of the plaintiff and causing him personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued Railway Express for negligence in federal district court, with jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
- At trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce expert testimony on the customary methods of delivering barreled cargo, but the court rejected the offer as irrelevant.
- At the close of all testimony, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.
- The district court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, ruling that either no negligence had been established or the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- The plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 Pennsylvania law, does evidence suggesting an employee's chosen delivery method was itself negligent, and that the employee was acting to further the employer's business despite deviating from instructions, create questions of fact for a jury regarding negligence and scope of employment, thus making a directed verdict for the employer improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Aldisert, Circuit Judge
Yes. A directed verdict for the employer was improper because sufficient evidence existed for a jury to determine the issues of negligence and scope of employment. The court reasoned that the trial court erred by limiting its negligence inquiry to the specific actions of the participants during the unloading process. The broader concept of negligence—whether the chosen method of lowering a 226-pound barrel down stairs was itself a breach of ordinary care—presented a distinct issue for the jury. Furthermore, expert testimony on the customary methods of delivering such cargo is relevant to establishing the standard of care and should have been considered. Finally, under Pennsylvania law, whether an employee acts within the scope of employment is a factual question for the jury. An employee's deviation from literal instructions does not automatically absolve the employer of liability if the act was done to further the employer's business, which a jury could reasonably infer from these facts.
Analysis:
This decision broadens the scope of a negligence inquiry, emphasizing that the choice of method can be just as critical as the execution of the method. It reinforces the principle that industry custom and practice are relevant, though not dispositive, evidence for establishing the standard of care, making it easier for plaintiffs to introduce such expert testimony. The ruling also affirms a broad, fact-intensive view of respondeat superior, making it more difficult for employers to evade liability by simply claiming an employee violated an internal rule while performing work for the company's benefit. Consequently, the case makes summary dismissals like directed verdicts less likely in tort actions where the reasonableness of a work method or the scope of employment is a plausible issue.
