Pittsburgh, S. & N. R. Co. v. Lamphere
1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4535, 69 C.C.A. 542, 137 F. 20 (1905)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer has a duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace, which includes warning employees of latent dangers that are not obvious. An employee does not assume the risk of such a danger unless they have actual knowledge of it or had a reasonable opportunity to observe it during the course of their duties.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Lamphere, was an experienced brakeman who began working on a new railroad division for the defendant company.
- The train's route passed under a low overhead bridge that was only about three feet higher than the top of a standard freight car.
- The defendant company did not place any "telltale" or whiplash warnings to alert employees on top of cars about the approaching low bridge.
- Lamphere's usual duties required him to ride on the engine's pilot or in the passenger coach, positions from which he testified he had no opportunity to observe the bridge.
- On June 17, 1903, the train's normal stopping procedure changed, and it continued towards the bridge without stopping at the usual switch.
- In response, Lamphere began walking back over the top of the freight cars toward the passenger coach.
- While walking on top of a car with his back to the bridge, he was struck by the structure and seriously injured.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Lamphere, sued the defendant railroad company in the trial court for negligence.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff based on the jury's verdict.
- The defendant railroad company, as plaintiff in error, appealed the judgment to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by writ of error.
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 non-obvious workplace hazard, such as a low bridge, when the employer failed to provide a warning and the employee's regular duties did not provide a reasonable opportunity to discover the hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Gray, Circuit Judge
No. An employee does not assume the risk of a hazard that is not plainly observable and of which the employer has not provided a warning. The employer has a duty to use due care to provide a reasonably safe workplace, and the employee is entitled to assume the employer has fulfilled this duty. The doctrine of assumption of risk applies only when a defect is known to the employee or is so patent and obvious as to be readily observed. In this case, although Lamphere had passed under the bridge 22 times, his testimony supported the conclusion that he was in positions where he could not see it, and his only opportunity to do so was from a 40-foot stretch of track while riding on the engine's pilot facing forward, which was not a reasonable opportunity for observation. Therefore, the questions of the defendant's negligence in failing to warn and the plaintiff's assumption of risk were properly submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the employer's duty to warn of latent workplace dangers and clarifies the scope of the assumption of risk doctrine. It establishes that an employee's 'opportunity to know' of a hazard is not determined by mere physical proximity but by a practical and reasonable chance to observe it during the performance of their duties. The case also affirms the use of industry custom, such as the use of 'telltales,' as evidence for the standard of ordinary care. This precedent makes it more difficult for employers to defeat negligence claims by arguing an employee 'should have known' about a danger that was not obvious or directly pointed out.
