DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Erma Maxine CONLEY, Administratrix of the Estate of Leslie S. Conley, deceased, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit1961-07-21No. No. 6657

293 F.2d 612

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. A railroad employer has a legal duty to provide a safe workplace even on premises it does not own or maintain, and remains liable for an employee's death when negligence caused an initial injury that necessitated medical treatment during which fatal complications arose.

A railroad employee suffered back injuries when a switch engine passed over a faulty section of track that the railroad did not own or maintain, causing him to fall. Subsequently, during back surgery to address these injuries, a tooth was dislodged, leading to an infection and death from pneumonia. The railroad challenged the jury verdict, arguing it bore no responsibility because it neither owned nor maintained the track where the injury occurred, lacked knowledge of the unsafe condition, and was not the proximate cause of death since the fatal infection resulted from surgical complications rather than the initial accident.

The court rejected these arguments. A railroad employer remains legally obligated to provide employees with a safe workplace regardless of whether it owns or maintains the specific premises where work is performed. The deteriorated rail condition, evident after more than 30 years of use, gave the railroad constructive knowledge of the unsafe track through its duty to inspect. Moreover, when an employer's negligence places an employee in a position requiring third-party medical services, the employer remains liable for resulting injuries, including those stemming from medical treatment necessitated by the original workplace negligence.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an employer's duty to provide a safe workplace extends to non-owned or non-maintained premises
Whether the employer had constructive knowledge of track deterioration despite not owning or maintaining the track
Whether proximate causation exists when death results from medical treatment necessitated by a workplace injury

Procedural posture

The railroad appealed from a trial court judgment awarding damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act in a wrongful death action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

MURRAH, Chief Judge.

Defendant-railroad is appealing from the trial court’s judgment in an action arising under the F.E.L.A., 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., awarding plaintiff damages for the death of her husband.

The undisputed facts show that while in the course of his employment with the railroad, decedent received injuries to his back when a switch engine on which he was riding passed over a faulty section of track, on which a rail broke, causing him to be thrown to the ground. The track in question was neither owned nor maintained by defendant. Some time later, decedent was advised to have an operation on his back, during the course of which a tooth was jarred loose from his mouth, causing infection which resulted in his death from pneumonia.

It is defendant’s argument that the trial court incorrectly submitted the case to the jury, after its motion for directed verdict, for lack of proof that it failed to provide decedent a safe place to work; that it had chargeable knowledge of the unsafe condition of the track; or that the accident was the proximate cause of the death. In sum, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to take the case to the jury, or to sustain the verdict.

The fact that the employer-railroad did not own or maintain the premises on which the employee was injured in the course of his employment did not relieve it of the legal duty to provide him with a safe place to work. See Terminal R. Ass’n of St. Louis v. Fitzjohn, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 473, 1 A.L.R.2d 290. See also Beattie v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry., 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 863; Kooker v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., 6 Cir., 258 F.2d 876. Whether or not the track was unsafe, and defendant’s knowledge of that condition was a factual matter for the jury, Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 510, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493; Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 178, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 93 L.Ed. 1282; and we may overturn its verdict “only when there is a complete absence of probative facts * * Fleming v. Kellett, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 265, 268; Herdman v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 352 U.S. 518, 77 S.Ct. 455, 1 L.Ed.2d 508. In our case, there was ample proof that the rail had become dangerously deteriorated after more than 30 years use, and the duty the law imposed upon the railroad to inspect the tracks over which it moves its trains imputes to it constructive knowledge of the unsafe condition. See Beattie v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry., supra, 217 F.2d at page 866.

Defendant’s argument that it is free from liability because decedent’s death directly resulted from the injury occurring on the operating table rather than at the rail yard is likewise unconvincing. For it is the generally accepted rule that a master’s liability extends to such injuries when its negligence placed the employee in a position of necessarily relying upon the services of third persons. See Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Justis, 5 Cir., 232 F.2d 267, 60 A.L.R. 2d 628; Restatement, Torts, § 457; Jess Edwards, Inc. v. Goergen, 10 Cir., 256 F.2d 542, 544; Harris v. Brian, 10 Cir., 255 F.2d 176; Annotation, 126 A.L.R. 912.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.