Pinkley v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad
246 Ill. 370 (1910)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable for an employee's injuries where the nature and severity of the harm were unforeseeable, even if the work activity was known to carry a risk of minor, temporary harm.
Facts:
- Samuel A. Pinkley was an employee of the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, tasked with handling materials in its supply yards.
- Pinkley and his co-workers regularly handled timbers treated with a creosote preparation and knew from experience that it caused temporary skin irritation, including a burning sensation and blistering.
- On August 6, 1907, a foreman ordered Pinkley to unload a car of timbers that were freshly treated with creosote, which was soft and dripping on a very hot day.
- The foreman acknowledged the timbers were freshly treated and provided vaseline to the workers to prevent the known minor skin irritation.
- After handling the timbers, Pinkley developed a severe, painful, and permanent skin disease diagnosed as eczema, an injury far more serious than the temporary effects previously experienced by any employee.
- The railroad company had used creosote-treated timbers for many years and had no prior knowledge of any employee suffering an injury more severe than temporary skin irritation.
- Pinkley's case was the first instance of a serious or permanent injury from handling creosote-treated wood ever reported to the company's chief surgeon.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel A. Pinkley sued the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company in the circuit court of Fayette county, a trial court, to recover damages for personal injuries.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Pinkley for $600.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict after denying the railroad's motion for a new trial.
- The railroad company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.
- The Appellate Court then granted a certificate of importance, allowing the railroad company, as appellant, to appeal to the state's highest court.
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 liable for an employee's severe and permanent injuries resulting from a workplace substance when such injuries were unforeseeable, even though minor, temporary irritation from the substance was a known and foreseeable risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Cooke
No. An employer is not liable for injuries that could not have been reasonably foreseen. The law holds a defendant liable for consequences that are the natural and reasonable results of their acts, which could be reasonably anticipated, but not for remote damages that are unusual and unexpected. In this case, while the railroad knew the creosote preparation could cause minor, temporary skin irritation—a fact also known to Pinkley—there was no evidence it knew or could have known that exposure could result in a severe, permanent disease like eczema. The appellee's injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the foreman's order. Since the appellant could not have reasonably anticipated such a severe injury, it had no duty to warn of it and therefore cannot be held liable for negligence.
Dissenting - Hand, Farmer, and Carter, JJ.
This opinion was noted but no reasoning was provided in the case text.
Analysis:
This decision refines the element of foreseeability in employer negligence cases by holding that the specific type and severity of the harm must be foreseeable, not merely the existence of some generalized risk. It establishes that an employer's knowledge of a minor, known risk does not automatically create a duty to warn about a distinct, unforeseeable, and catastrophic risk from the same source. This precedent limits employer liability for highly unusual or idiosyncratic employee injuries, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that the employer had notice of the particular danger that caused the severe harm.
