Titus v. Bradford, B. & K. R. Co.
20 A. 517 (1890)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not negligent for using methods, machinery, or appliances that conform to the common usage of the industry. The standard of care is not the highest degree of safety possible, but what is reasonably safe according to the ordinary practices and risks of the business.
Facts:
- The defendant railroad company regularly transported broad-gauge (standard) car bodies on narrow-gauge trucks.
- To make the car bodies fit, the company used hard-wood blocks fastened with telegraph wire, a practice witnesses described as customary.
- The deceased was employed by the defendant as a brakeman for five to six months on trains that utilized this system.
- The specific type of car involved in the fatal accident, a 'Nypano' car, had been frequently transported using this method.
- Prior to becoming a brakeman, the deceased had worked on the hoist that transferred these car bodies onto the trucks, giving him direct familiarity with the process.
- An accident involving one of these modified cars resulted in the employee's death.
Procedural Posture:
- The representative for the deceased employee sued the defendant railroad company in a state trial court for negligence.
- At trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court judge denied.
- The case was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The trial court entered a judgment against the defendant railroad company.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 a railroad company negligent for using a particular method of placing broad-gauge car bodies on narrow-gauge trucks when that method is a common and ordinary practice in the narrow-gauge railroad business?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Mitchell
No, a railroad company is not negligent for using this method because the unbending test of negligence in methods and machinery is the ordinary usage of the business. The court reasoned that employers are not insurers of their employees' absolute safety and are not required to adopt the newest and best appliances. Their duty is met when they furnish equipment of ordinary character and reasonable safety, with industry custom being the primary measure of what is reasonable. Here, the plaintiff’s own witnesses established that the defendant’s practice was customary within the narrow-gauge railroad industry. A jury cannot be permitted to establish a new standard of care that effectively dictates the customs of an entire business community. Furthermore, the deceased had worked for months with full knowledge of this practice and its associated risks, thereby assuming the risks of his employment.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'industry custom' or 'ordinary usage' standard as a powerful defense for employers in negligence cases. It establishes that an employer's duty of care regarding workplace safety is measured against the common practices of their specific industry, not against a standard of ideal or perfect safety. The decision significantly limits a jury's ability to find negligence when a defendant has adhered to industry norms, thereby preventing the judiciary from setting business standards. It also reinforces the assumption of risk doctrine, holding that an employee who knowingly accepts the inherent and obvious risks of a job cannot later hold the employer liable for injuries stemming from those risks.
Unlock the full brief for Titus v. Bradford, B. & K. R. Co.