Quick Summary
Stewart (plaintiff), sued Erie Railroad Co. (defendant) for injuries sustained in an accident caused by the absence of a customary watchman at a railroad crossing. The dispute centered on whether this absence amounted to negligence.
The court had to determine if Erie’s established practice created a duty to warn travelers and if its failure to do so constituted negligence. The court affirmed that there was negligence due to Erie’s unexplained deviation from its customary safety practice.
Facts of the Case
Stewart, the plaintiff, was an employee of the East Ohio Gas Company and was injured while he was a passenger in a truck at a railroad crossing. The crossing was owned by Erie Railroad Co., the defendant, which typically had a watchman present to warn of oncoming trains.
On the day of the accident, the watchman was absent from his post, and as a result, did not provide any warning of the approaching train that collided with the truck, causing Stewart’s injuries. Consequently, Stewart sued Erie for negligence.
Procedural History
- Stewart filed a lawsuit against Erie Railroad Co. for negligence in district court.
- The district court ruled in favor of Stewart.
- Erie Railroad Co. appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the absence of the watchman at the railroad crossing, where one had been maintained by Erie Railroad Co., constituted negligence as a matter of law.
Rule of Law
The railroad company owes a duty to travelers to exercise reasonable care in warning them of oncoming trains, especially when a custom of maintaining a watchman has been established and known to travelers.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that Ohio law does not permit the doctrine of imputed negligence and that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a question for the jury. The court further reasoned that there is a qualified assurance of safety in the absence of a flagman or when gates are not lowered, which has been supported in past rulings.
Regarding the watchman’s absence constituting negligence, the court acknowledged that while Erie’s employment of the watchman was voluntary and not required by statute or ordinance, the longstanding practice created an expectation for travelers like Stewart.
The court concluded that Erie Railroad Co. had established a standard of care by consistently having a watchman at the crossing and could not abandon this duty without reasonable warning to travelers who had come to rely on it. Erie’s failure to provide an explanation for the watchman’s absence led to the presumption of negligence, which they did not rebut with evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
The judgment of the district court in favor of Stewart was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Concurring Opinions
Judge TUTTLE concurred with the result but expressed his view that actionable negligence should not depend on whether the plaintiff knew about the defendant’s custom of maintaining a watchman. He emphasized that a railroad company owes a duty to all travelers to provide warnings at crossings if it has established such a custom.
Key Takeaways
- A railroad company owes a duty to travelers to warn them of approaching trains, especially when it has established such a custom.
- The absence of a customary safety measure like a watchman can constitute negligence if travelers have come to rely on it.
- A company cannot discontinue an established safety practice without reasonable warning to those who have relied on it.
- Judges may concur with the result but differ in their reasoning, as evidenced by Judge TUTTLE’s concurrence.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What factors does the law consider in determining if a custom establishes a duty of care?
A duty of care established through custom is assessed based on the consistency and longevity of the practice, its general acceptance, and its reliance by the public. Courts examine whether the practice was so regular and prevalent that it creates a reasonable expectation of safety among those affected by it.
- For example: A shopping mall regularly provides security escorts to patrons to their cars at night. If this service is abruptly withdrawn with no notification and it leads to a patron being harmed, the mall could be found negligent for discontinuing an established practice that customers had come to rely upon for their safety.
How does the absence of a previously provided safety measure impact negligence determinations?
The absence of a prior safety measure can lead to a presumption of negligence if it is proven that its removal caused harm to someone who reasonably relied on it. This hinges on whether the affected party had a justified expectation for the safety measure to be present.
- For example: An amusement park that usually has lifeguards at a wave pool one day doesn’t staff any, without making guests aware. If a guest, accustomed to this safety feature, drowns as a result, the park could be held liable for negligence due to the lifeguards’ unexpected absence.
In what ways can a business warn individuals when discontinuing an established safety practice?
A business must provide clear and effective communication about the discontinuation of a safety practice to those who may be affected. This can be done through various means such as signage, direct notifications, public announcements, or physical barriers indicating change.
- For example: If a city decides to remove traffic lights from a busy intersection due to technological upgrades, putting up signs indicating ‘Traffic Lights Removed – Use Caution’ would be an appropriate method to alert drivers and pedestrians of the change in safety features at the intersection.
References
Was this case brief helpful?