Michael Flaherty vs. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1912-05-22

211 Mass. 570

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment for the plaintiff is affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff exercised due care as a matter of fact for the jury, that the railroad's brakeman was negligent in failing to warn and stop the train, and that the railroad cannot escape liability by invoking the assumption-of-risk doctrine for extraordinary, non-ordinary employment risks caused by the railroad's own negligence.

Michael Flaherty, a railroad employee, was struck by a backing train while walking along a spur track near the defendant's yard. He was traveling this route to return his tools and submit his work report—a path commonly used by railroad employees for years and one his foreman had directed him to take. The court found that Flaherty exercised reasonable care by listening for warning signals and periodically looking behind him, making it a jury question whether he acted with due care despite the inherent dangers of the location.

The evidence supported a finding that the rear brakeman, Whalen, was negligent in operating the train. Whalen had control of the train through air brakes, knew employees were likely to be present in the area, and had adequate visibility from his position to see Flaherty. The brakeman failed to sound the customary warning whistle and did not stop the train before striking the plaintiff. The defendant railroad is liable for Whalen's negligence under applicable law.

The railroad argued the plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in his employment, but the court rejected this defense. The specific risk that materialized—a train arriving without a warning signal coupled with the operator's failure to stop—was not an ordinary risk of the job. An employer cannot escape liability for its own negligence by claiming an employee assumed such risks. The jury properly determined that Flaherty did not voluntarily accept the risk of the railroad's negligent conduct.

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

Key issues

Whether plaintiff exercised due care when traveling a dangerous but permitted and customary route
Whether railroad brakeman was negligent in failing to sound warning signal and stop backing train
Whether assumption-of-risk doctrine bars recovery for injuries from extraordinary risks caused by employer negligence

Procedural posture

This appears to be an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a personal injury action brought against the railroad.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

DeCourcy, J.

The plaintiff was walking from the Trinity Place station to the Huntington Avenue car yard of the defendant, for the purpose of returning his tools and delivering the usual written statement of his day’s work. Along the middle of the railroad location there was a fence; and north of this was the main track for outbound passenger trains and a spur track which led into the yard. Flaherty was walking alongside this spur track and close to a fence that formed the northerly bound of the location when he was struck from behind by a train of empty cars that was backing out from the South Station to the yard.

The path travelled by the plaintiff was a dangerous one, but we cannot say as matter of law that he was not exercising due care. For years this route had been used commonly and openly by employees of the defendant, “bosses, foremen, brakemen, conductors, car cleaners, men and women.” And upon the plaintiff’s testimony this was the only permissible way to reach the yards, as his foreman had forbidden him to go around by the street and told him to go down the track. Further there was ample evidence that it was customary for the rear brakeman on trains that were being backed down to the yards to blow the whistle on the air hose as a warning signal at this place, and to look out for persons on or near the track. The plaintiff said that he knew of and relied somewhat upon this custom and that no signal was sounded from the train that injured him. According to his testimony he not only listened for the usual whistle or bell of any approaching train, but took the further precaution of looking behind him a number of times during the minute and a half that he was on or near the track. The main track would have been a still more dangerous place for him on account of the frequency of passenger trains. We are of opinion that it was for the jury to determine the weight to be given to this evidence and to pass upon the due care of the plaintiff. Hines v. Stanley G. I. Electric Manuf. Co. 199 Mass. 522. Santore v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 203 Mass. 437. Anthony v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 208 Mass. 11.

The evidence would warrant a finding that the injury was due to the negligence of one Whalen, the rear brakeman oh train 10. He was in charge or control of the train, which he could slow up or stop by applying the air brakes; and for his negligence the defendant is responsible. R. L. c. 106, § 71. He admittedly knew that employees were likely to be on and near the track at the place of the accident, and especially at that hour; he testified that it was his business “to look, out for anybody or signals, everything;” that his hand was on the valve and by turning it he could check or stop the train which was entirely within his control; and that a man on the rear platform would have no difficulty in seeing a person who was walking near the fence. The place was well lighted, yet for some unexplained reason Whalen failed to see the plaintiff before the accident. Upon the evidence the jury would be warranted in finding that the accident was due to his failure to stop the train before the plaintiff was injured. Steffe v. Old Colony Railroad, 156 Mass. 262. Hines v. Stanley G. I. Electric Manuf. Co. 199 Mass. 522.

The defense of assumption of risk is not set up in the answer, but counsel have raised no question of pleading. Under the doctrine of contractual assumption of risk the defendant owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to protect him from the dangers that were incidental to his employment as ordinarily and carefully conducted. Here, however, it could be found that the plaintiff’s injury was due to a risk that was not usual or ordinary, namely, the approach of a train without the customary warning signal, and the subsequent negligent failure to stop the train. The negligence of the defendant or of those for whose carelessness it is legally responsible, is not assumed by the plaintiff. To rule that the defendant owed the plaintiff no protection from the consequences of its own neglect would be to nullify the statutory provision which expressly imposed upon the defendant a duty towards the plaintiff. Here, as generally, it is for the jury to say whether the plaintiff appreciated the risk of the danger from which he suffered and voluntarily assumed it. And the burden of sustaining this issue is upon the defendant. Leary v. William G. Webber Co. 210 Mass. 68.

In accordance with the report, judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500.

So ordered.