Ready to print. Press Ctrl+P (⌘+P on Mac), or
CaseSearchBETA
Open CaseSearch appOpen app

McCain v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.

No. 725
Decided Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Disposition
affirmed
full scope · unanimous
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado
Decided
Judge
SANBORN, Circuit Judge
Posture
Judgment for defendant after court directed verdict for defendant
Plaintiff in error (employee) (1)
Louis M. McCain
T. J. O’Donnell, W. S. Decker, Milton Smith
v.
Defendant in error (employer)s (2)
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
Henry F. May, Edward O. Wolcott, J. F. Yaile

Overview

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

Case summary

Louis M. McCain, a common laborer employed by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, sued for negligence after getting a steel splinter in his finger while wiping an engine in the railroad's roundhouse. The injury occurred when he placed his bare hand on a sliver (6 inches long, projecting 0.5-1 inch) on a driving wheel tire to support himself. Evidence showed such slivers frequently form on engine tires and are left until wheels are turned anew. At trial, the court directed a verdict for the defendant. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the injury was not foreseeable, the danger was open and patent so plaintiff assumed the risk, and plaintiff was contributorily negligent in placing his hand on the sliver when smooth surfaces were available. The court found no error in directing the verdict.

Abstract

A railroad laborer sued his employer for negligence after injuring his finger on a protruding steel sliver while wiping an engine in a roundhouse. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding the injury was not foreseeable, the danger was open and obvious warranting assumption of risk, and the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by using the hazardous surface when safer options existed. The judgment was affirmed with costs.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinionSANBORN, Circuit Judgejoined by CALDWELL, THAYER
  • Injury not foreseeable
  • Plaintiff assumed open and patent risk
  • Plaintiff contributorily negligent
  • Directed verdict proper

Jurisdiction

not challenged
Subject matter
Diversity or federal question jurisdiction from Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado
Jurisdictional facts
  • Writ of error sued out from judgment of Circuit Court

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Judgment for defendant after court directed verdict for defendant
Posture on appeal
Direct appeal via writ of error
Preserved issues
  • Whether court erred in directing verdict for defendant on negligence claim

Subsequent history

Petition for rehearing
not filed

Legal categories

BusinessCollections and Workers' Comp

Case record

Full case name
McCAIN v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.
Docket number
No. 725
Court
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Trial court
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado
Decided
Opinion author
SANBORN, Circuit Judge
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
CALDWELLSANBORNTHAYER

Issues & holdings

1
Issues raised
1
affirmed
4
Holdings
Standard of review

De novo for legal error in directing verdict

Disposition rationale

No negligence shown; injury not foreseeable; plaintiff assumed risk and was contributorily negligent

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Negligence liability
Defendant railroad company was not liable for plaintiff's injury
Injury could not have been foreseen or reasonably anticipated as probable result of any negligence; slivers were common and not incapacitating; employer could not anticipate employee would place bare hand on splintered steel when smooth surfaces available
unanimousbinding precedent
Assumption of risk
Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from the sliver
Danger was open and patent, observable in daytime; plaintiff as common laborer should have known risks from ragged steel; he assumed risks when entering employment
unanimousbinding precedent
Contributory negligence
Plaintiff was negligent and contributed to his injury
Reasonably prudent person would not place bare hand on ragged splinters in open day when smooth surfaces available; plaintiff failed to exercise due care
unanimousbinding precedent
Directed verdict
Trial court properly directed verdict for defendant
Evidence undisputed that plaintiff could not recover; verdict for plaintiff could not have been sustained
unanimousbinding precedent

Error analysis

  • Trial court erred in instructing jury to return verdict for defendant — procedural · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable

Burden of proof

Prosecution burden
Plaintiff must prove negligence by preponderance of evidence
Burden met
false

Standards of review

  • Error in directing verdict for defendant — de novo Court reviewed legal sufficiency of evidence to support negligence claim

Timeline

3
Events
— Not specified
Span
appeal eventcited in opinion

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed judgment below

Outcome: Affirmed

Final disposition of appeal

All issues on appeal
Judges CALDWELL, SANBORN, THAYER appellate court
Not specifiedfactual eventcited in opinion

Plaintiff, while wiping an engine in defendant's roundhouse, placed his bare hand on a steel sliver on a driving wheel tire to support himself, getting a splinter in his finger

Caused injury leading to lawsuit

NegligenceAssumption of riskContributory negligence
Louis M. McCain Roundhouse of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
Not specifiedtrial eventcited in opinion

Trial court instructed jury to return a verdict for defendant

Outcome: Verdict for defendant directed

Basis for appeal

Error in directing verdict
Judge · Jury · Parties trial court

Facts & evidence

Incident

Date
Not specified
Location
Roundhouse of defendant railroad company

Key facts

7 facts
  1. Plaintiff was a common laborer employed by defendant railroad
  2. Plaintiff was wiping an engine in the daytime
  3. A sliver of steel (6 inches long, projecting 0.5-1 inch) was on the tire of a driving wheel due to constant hammering on tracks
  4. Plaintiff placed his bare hand on the tire to support himself while wiping rods
  5. A small splinter from the sliver entered his forefinger
  6. Plaintiff did not remove splinter for several days, causing festering and serious hand injury
  7. Evidence showed such slivers frequently form on engine tires and are left until wheels are turned anew

Disputed questions

  • Whether defendant was negligent
  • Whether plaintiff assumed risk
  • Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent

Procedural history

3 steps
  1. Trial court instructed jury to return verdict for defendant
  2. Judgment rendered for defendant
  3. Plaintiff sued out writ of error

Evidence in the record

Direct
  • Plaintiff's injury occurred while wiping engine
  • Sliver was present on tire
Physical
  • Steel sliver on driving wheel tire (6 inches long, projecting 0.5-1 inch)
  • Small splinter from sliver
Testimonial
  • Plaintiff's account of injury
  • Evidence that slivers frequently form on engine tires and are left until wheels turned anew
Circumstantial
  • Sliver formed due to constant hammering on tracks
  • Plaintiff placed hand on sliver when smooth surfaces available

Jury

Verdict
For defendant (directed)
Deliberation time
Not applicable (verdict directed)
Jury instructions given
  • Instruction to return verdict for defendant

Sentencing

Sentence imposed
Not applicable (civil case)

Objects of relevance

Steel sliver on engine driving wheel tireEngine in railroad roundhouseWaste and oil for cleaning engine

Policy considerations

  • Employer liability limited to foreseeable risks
  • Employees assume open and obvious dangers
  • Promotes care by employees in workplace

Authorities

Cited authorities (8)

Railway Co. v. Elliott, 12 U. S. App. 381, 5 C. C. A. 347, 55 Fed. 949
followedprecedent
Cited for principle that injury not foreseeable is not actionable
Manufacturing Co. v. Erickson, 12 U. S. App. 260, 5 C. C. A. 341, 55 Fed. 943
followedprecedent
Cited for assumption of risk of patent dangers
Motey v. Granite Co., 20 C. C. A. 367, 74 Fed. 155
followedprecedent
Cited for assumption of risk and contributory negligence
Gowen v. Harley, 12 U. S. App. 574, 6 C. C. A. 190, 56 Fed. 973
followedprecedent
Cited for duty to exercise reasonable care and contributory negligence
Railway Co. v. Jarvi, 10 U. S. App. 439, 3 C. C. A. 433, 53 Fed. 65
followedprecedent
Cited for contributory negligence barring recovery
Railway Co. v. Hoedling’s Adm’r, 10 U. S. App. 422, 3 C. C. A. 429, 53 Fed. 61
followedprecedent
Cited for duty to direct verdict when evidence insufficient
Railway Co. v. Moseley, 12 U. S. App. 601, 6 C. C. A. 641, 57 Fed. 921
followedprecedent
Cited for propriety of directed verdict
Reynolds v. Railway Co., 16 C. C. A. 435, 69 Fed. 808
followedprecedent
Cited for directed verdict standard

Standards & doctrines

  • Foreseeability doctrine in negligence
  • Assumption of risk doctrine
  • Contributory negligence doctrine

Legal principles applied

  • Injury not actionable if not foreseeable
  • Employee assumes patent risks of employment
  • Employee must exercise reasonable care for own safety

Notable quotes

“An injury that could not be foreseen or reasonably anticipated as the probable result of negligence is not actionable.”
majority — Discussing requirement of foreseeability for negligence liability
States key principle of negligence law
“The danger and risk from the ragged sliver were open and patent, and he necessarily assumed them when he entered upon his employment.”
majority — Explaining assumption of risk doctrine
Applies assumption of risk to open dangers
Index terms59
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
affirmed
Target
trial court judgment
Appealed from
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado
Context
Court affirmed judgment below, holding no error in directing verdict for defendant
Scope
full
Disposition vote
unanimous
Physical materials
Search facets
Parties
Judges
CaldwellSanbornThayer
Courts
Locations