Murray v. South Carolina Railroad
26 S.C.L. 385 (1841)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable for an injury to a servant caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, where both are engaged in a common enterprise and there is no negligence in the employer's selection of the servant at fault.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Murray, was employed by The South Carolina Railroad Company as a fireman on a steam locomotive.
- While performing his duties, Murray was injured.
- The injury was the result of the negligence of the train's engineer, who was also an employee of The South Carolina Railroad Company.
- The engineer was known to be competent, and Murray had known the engineer and selected to serve under him.
- Both the fireman and the engineer were engaged in the common task of operating the train.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Murray, sued the defendant, The South Carolina Railroad Company, in a state trial court for injuries sustained in its service.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant moved for a new trial, and the case was appealed to the Court of Errors of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employer, such as a railroad company, vicariously liable for an injury sustained by one of its servants as a result of the negligence of another servant, when both are engaged in the same common employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Evans, J.
No. The railroad company is not liable to one servant for an injury arising from the negligence of another servant. A servant, unlike a passenger or a stranger, assumes the ordinary risks incident to their employment, which includes the negligence of a co-servant. The fireman and engineer were not strangers to each other but were engaged in a 'joint undertaking' where each stipulated for the performance of his own part; the company is not liable to one for the misconduct of another. The principle of respondeat superior, which holds a principal liable for an agent's acts, does not apply between co-servants because the engineer no more represents the company than the plaintiff fireman does. An exception might exist if the company were negligent in hiring an unfit person, but that was not the case here.
Concurring - Johnson, Chancellor
No. Liability must arise from the employment contract, which contains no implied term that the employer guarantees the diligence and skill of fellow employees. The plaintiff knew the employment was perilous, that he would be working with others, and that success depended on their common efforts. He is presumed to have undertaken to meet all the perils incident to the employment, including the risk of a co-worker's negligence, for which he is compensated through wages.
Dissenting - O'Neall, J.
Yes. The company should be liable based on the general principle that a master is responsible for the acts of their agent. The engineer was put in command of the engine by the company and, in that role, acted as the company's substitute; his negligence is therefore the company's negligence. The plaintiff had a right to expect the company to provide a skillful and faithful engineer, and when the engineer was negligent, the company breached its undertaking. Public policy favors holding the company liable, as it would elicit greater care and prudence, thereby protecting life and property.
Dissenting - J. Johnston, Ch.
Yes. When servants have several, distinct duties, they are not joint undertakers, and the master is responsible to one for the misconduct of another who is exclusively the master's agent. The fireman's contract involved two parts: performing his duties as a servant and being transported safely as a passenger. With respect to the engineer's duty to safely operate the train—a department over which the fireman had no control—the fireman was effectively a passenger whom the company crippled through the negligence of its agent, the engineer.
Analysis:
This case is historically significant for establishing the 'fellow-servant rule' in American tort law. This doctrine created a substantial barrier for employees seeking damages from employers for workplace injuries, shifting the economic risk of co-worker negligence onto the workers themselves. The rule drastically limited employer liability for nearly a century, reflecting a judicial policy favorable to burgeoning industries during the Industrial Revolution. This common law doctrine was eventually superseded by the enactment of workers' compensation statutes in the early 20th century.
