Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co, 690
| Decision Date | 25 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 690,690 |
| Citation | 83 S.Ct. 690,372 U.S. 248,9 L.Ed.2d 711 |
| Parties | John E. HARRISON, Sr. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The petitioner, a section foreman for respondent railroad, was assaulted by one of his section gang whom he accused of stealing a ballast fork. In this action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., the petitioner was awarded damages by a jury in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. The trial judge set aside the verdict and granted respondent's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Appellate Court affirmed, 35 Ill.App.2d 66, 181 N.E.2d 737. Its judgment became final when the Illinois Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal. Ill.Rev.Stat., 1961, c. 110, § 75.
The trial judge granted respondent's motion on the ground that 'there was a lack of evidence to sustain' the jury's verdict. The Appellate Court, in affirming, held that there was no evidence sufficient to support a finding that the respondent knew or should have known prior to the assault of propensities of the assailant to commit such assaults.
We think that the Illinois courts improperly invaded the function and province of the jury in this case. While '* * * reasonable foreseeability of harm is an essential ingredient of Federal Employers' Liability Act negligence,' Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 372 U.S. 108, at 117, 83 S.Ct. 659, at 665, we have held that the fact that 'the foreseeable danger was from intentional or criminal misconduct is irrelevant; respondent nonetheless had a duty to make reasonable provision against it.' Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U.S. 459, 462, 68 S.Ct. 140, 142, 92 L.Ed. 73. The petitioner's evidence was that his immediate superior, a roadmaster, assigned the assailant to petitioner's crew and at the time warned him: He also testified to having several times complained to the roadmaster about the assailant's misconduct and refusal to follow his orders during the two moths the assailant was with his crew. Finally, he testified that after the assault the roadmaster said to him: This testimony was disputed but, if believed by the jury, it constituted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masiello v. Metro-North Commuter RR.
...by railroad negligence but were not what one would categorize as "railroad type injuries." See e.g., Harrison v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 248, 83 S.Ct. 690, 9 L.Ed.2d 711 (1963) (intentional assault of a railroad employee by another employee); Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U.S. 459, 68......
-
Pikop v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
...course of discharging his or her duties and in furtherance of the railroad's business. In Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 372 U.S. 248, 83 S.Ct. 690, 9 L.Ed.2d 711 (1963) (per curiam), the Court, recognizing a direct-negligence theory of liability under the Act, held that a railr......
-
Green v. River Terminal Ry. Co.
...v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 372 U.S. 108, 117, 83 S.Ct. 659, 665, 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963); Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 372 U.S. 248, 249, 83 S.Ct. 690, 690, 9 L.Ed.2d 711 (1963); Scocozza v. Erie R. Co., 171 F.2d 745, 746-47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 907, 69 S.Ct. ......
-
Wahlstrom v. Metro-North Commuter R. Co.
...should have known prior to the assault of propensities of the assailant to commit such assaults." Harrison v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 248, 249, 83 S.Ct. 690, 9 L.Ed.2d 711 (1963); see also Green v. River Terminal Ry. Co., 763 F.2d 805, 808-09 (6th Cir. 1985) ("A railroad has no lia......