Erie Railroad Company v Charles Stewart by Gao

Erie Railroad Company v. Charles Stewart by Gao Na

Fact 2 Argument 3 Volting 4 Majority opinion 5 Concurring opinion 6 Q&A CONTENTS 1

Basic information • Appellant: Erie Railroad Company • Appellee: Charles Stewart • Cause: • Stewart recovered a judgment in the District Court for injuries caused by Erie R Co. • Erie R Co appealed.

Fact Stewart(plaintiff) was an employee of the East Ohio Gas Company. He was sitting in the passenger seat of a truck driven by one of his fellow employees. The truck approached a railroad crossing owned by Erie Railroad Company(defendant). Erie typically employed a watchman at this crossing to warn of oncoming trains, but the watchman was temporarily away from his post.

Fact As such, he did not warn of an approaching train operated by Erie until it was too late. The train struck the truck in which Stewart was riding, and Stewart suffered injuries. Stewart brought suit against Erie for negligence, and the district court granted judgment for Stewart. Erie appealed.

Some details The employment of the watchman by the defendant was voluntary upon its part, there was no statute or ordinance(regulation) requiring the same.

Some details The defendent didn't give an explaination of the absence of the watchman or the failure to give other notice of his withdrawal.

Some details Plaintiff had knowledge of this practice and relied on the absence of the watchman assurance of safety and implied invitation to cross.

Volting time ? Is there any actionable negligence which the Erie R Co should be liable for ? 1 yes 2 no

Argument 1 whethere was any positive duty owing to the plaintiff in respect to the maintenance of such watchman. 2 whether a breach of such duty is so conclusively shown as to justify a peremptory charge of negligence. 3 whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

Majority opioion HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge. l. If the employment of a watchman or other precaution is required by statute, existence of an absolute duty to the plaintiff is conclusively shown, and failure to observe the statutory requirement is definitely negligence. l. Conversely, if there is no duty prescribed by statute or ordinance, it is usually a question for the jury whether the circumstances made the employment of a watchman necessary in the exercise of due care.

Majority opioion HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge. If the voluntary employment of a watchman was unknown to the traveler on the highway, the mere absence of such watchman could probably not be considered as negligence toward him as a matter of law, for in such case there is neither an established duty positively owing to such traveler as a member of the general public, nor had he been led into reliance on the custom.

Majority opioion HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge. But in the present case, the Railroad company has established for itself a standard of due care while operating its trains across the highway. Having led the traveler into reliance upon such standard, the railroad company should not be permitted thereafter to say that there is no duty required, arose from or attached to these precautions.

Majority opioion HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge. v. In the present case, the evidence conclusively establishes the voluntary employment of a watchman a duty that the company, through the watchman, shall exercise reasonable care in warning such travelers as plaintiff. v. But in fact the watchman was away from his post. v. And the absence of the watchman or the failure to give other notice of his withdrawal were wholly unexplained by the defedant.

u voluntary employment of a watchman established a positive duty owing to such traveler as a member of the general public; u the watchman who reprensented the railroad company didn't well perform his duty; u the defedant didn't give an explaination of the absence of the watchman or the failure to give other notice of his withdrawal ; u plaintiff had knowledge of this practice and relied on the absence of the watchman assurance of safety and implied invitation to cross;

“ Conclusion The defendant, namely Erie Railroad Company, should be responsible for its negligence. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. ”

concurring opioion I concur in the result reached by the opinion of the majority of the court. I TUTTLE District Judge cannot, however, concur in the views, expressed in that opinion, which would make the actionable negligence of the defendant dependent on the knowledge of the plaintiff of the custom of the defendant in maintaining a watchman at the crossing where such injury occurred.

concurring opioion • Such railroad company should expect that any member of the traveling public is likely to have knowledge of, and to rely upon the giving of such warning. • Such knowledge, with the consequent reliance, may be acquired by a traveler at any time, perhaps only a moment before going upon the crossing.

concurring opioion • As in the present case, the unexplained failure of the defendant to give this customary warning to the plaintiff indicates actionable negligence for which it is liable as a matter of law.

concurring opioion • Under such circumstances, such a railroad company owes to every traveler so approaching this crossing a duty to give such a warning; • Without sufficient cause, a reasonably prudent railroad company would not fail to perform that duty.

concurring opioion • While lack of reliance by plaintiff on the custom of the defendant has an important bearing and effect on the question whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the plaintiff, unknown to the defendant, cannot affect the nature or extent of the duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant.

Q A &

THANK YOU.