From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Texas P. R. Co.

U.S.
Apr 6, 1959
359 U.S. 227 (1959)

Summary

holding that, where there is some evidence of master-servant relationship, it is "an issue for determination by the jury" as to whether defendant railroad is plaintiff's employer under FELA

Summary of this case from Zeller v. Canadian Nat'l Ry. Co.

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT.

No. 363.

Argued March 25, 1959. Decided April 6, 1959.

In this case arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the question whether the decedent was killed while he was "employed" by the railroad was an issue of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. Pp. 227-229.

309 S.W.2d 92, reversed.

Harvey L. Davis argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.

D. L. Case argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.


This action was commenced by the petitioners against the respondent railroad in a Texas State District Court, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51-60, to recover damages for the death of petitioners' decedent, Claude Baker, allegedly caused by the negligence of the respondent. Baker had been hired as a workman by W. H. Nichols Co., Inc., which was engaged in work along the main line right of way of the respondent under a contract with it. The work consisted of "grouting," or pumping sand and cement into the roadbed to strengthen and stabilize it. Baker was struck and killed by a train while engaged at this job. It was petitioners' contention in the trial court that Baker was killed while he was "employed" by respondent, within the meaning of § 1 of the Act. Evidence on the question was introduced by the parties, and a special issue for the jury's determination was framed, but the judge declined to submit the issue to the jury, holding as a matter of law that Baker was not in such a relationship to the railroad at the time of his death as to entitle him to the protection of the Act. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment for the respondent, 309 S.W.2d 92, and the Texas Supreme Court refused an application for a writ of error. We granted certiorari, 358 U.S. 878, to investigate whether such an issue is properly one for determination by the jury.

The Federal Employers' Liability Act does not use the terms "employee" and "employed" in any special sense, Robinson v. Baltimore Ohio R. Co., 237 U.S. 84, 94, so that the familiar general legal problems as to whose "employee" or "servant" a worker is at a given time present themselves as matters of federal law under the Act. See Linstead v. Chesapeake Ohio R. Co., 276 U.S. 28, 33-34. It has been well said of the question that "[e]ach case must be decided on its peculiar facts and ordinarily no one feature of the relationship is determinative." Cimorelli v. New York Central R. Co., 148 F.2d 575, 577. Although we find no decision of this Court that has discussed the matter, we think it perfectly plain that the question, like that of fault or of causation under the Act, contains factual elements such as to make it one for the jury under appropriate instructions as to the various relevant factors under law. See Restatement, Agency 2d, § 220, comment c; § 227, comment a. Only if reasonable men could not reach differing conclusions on the issue may the question be taken from the jury. See Chicago, R. I. P. R. Co. v. Bond, 240 U.S. 449. Here the petitioners introduced evidence tending to prove that the grouting work was part of the maintenance task of the railroad; that the road furnished the material to be pumped into the roadbed; and that a supervisor, admittedly in the employ of the railroad, in the daily course of the work exercised directive control over the details of the job performed by the individual workmen, including the precise point where the mixture should be pumped, when they should move to the next point, and the consistency of the mixture. The railroad introduced evidence tending to controvert this and further evidence tending to show that an employment relationship did not exist between it and Baker at the time of the accident. An issue for determination by the jury was presented. "The very essence of . . . [the jury's] function is to select from among conflicting inferences and conclusions that which it considers most reasonable." Tennant v. Peoria Pekin Union R. Co., 321 U.S. 29, 35.

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER would dismiss this writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. See Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 524. As the Court itself notes, "`[e]ach case must be decided on its peculiar facts . . . .'" Such cases are unique and of no precedential value and are, therefore, outside of the criteria justifying a grant of certiorari. See Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U.S. 440.


Summaries of

Baker v. Texas P. R. Co.

U.S.
Apr 6, 1959
359 U.S. 227 (1959)

holding that, where there is some evidence of master-servant relationship, it is "an issue for determination by the jury" as to whether defendant railroad is plaintiff's employer under FELA

Summary of this case from Zeller v. Canadian Nat'l Ry. Co.

finding adequate supervision and control to impose liability on railroad where plaintiff was employee of different entity but was performing track maintenance task under direct supervision of railroad's track supervisor at time of injury

Summary of this case from Zeller v. Canadian Nat'l Ry. Co.

finding evidence showing that employee's work was part of the maintenance task of railroad, railroad furnished material, and supervisor employed by railroad exercised directive control over details of job raised issue for jury's determination

Summary of this case from Coronado v. Schoenmann Produce

concluding in Federal Employers' Liability Act case that although whether an individual is an employee is a question of law, it "contains factual elements such as to make it one for the jury under appropriate instructions as to the various relevant factors under law"

Summary of this case from Knight v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Stony Brook

deciding whether a worker was an employee of the railroad

Summary of this case from Caillouette v. Baltimore Ohio Chicago Term

In Baker and Ward we referred to the Restatement as a source of principles which provide a basis for the factual decision as to whether an individual is an employee for FELA purposes. Under those principles an employee must be a servant and not merely an agent.

Summary of this case from Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co.

In Baker v. Texas Pacific R. Co., 359 U.S. 227 (1959), the petitioner's decedent had been hired as a workman by W.H. Nichols Co., a firm which had entered into a contract with the respondent railroad.

Summary of this case from Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co.

In Baker, supra, the Court reaffirmed that for the purposes of the FELA the question of employment, or master-servant status, was to be determined by reference to common-law principles.

Summary of this case from Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co.

In Baker, for example, a railroad supervisor communicated directly with the contracted workers, directing "the details of the job performed by the individual workmen, including the precise point where the mixture should be pumped, when they should move to the next point, and the consistency of the mixture."

Summary of this case from Hanley v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.

relying on "directive control"

Summary of this case from Hanley v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.

explaining that the question of whether an individual is an employee of a railroad for the purpose of FELA is generally a question of fact

Summary of this case from Schmidt v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.

allowing court to decide issue as matter of law where reasonable jurors could reach only one conclusion

Summary of this case from Rostocki v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

In Baker v. Texas and Pac. Ry. Co., 359 U.S. 227, 228, 79 S.Ct. 664, 665, 3 L.Ed.2d 756 (1959), the Supreme Court held that employee status is generally a question of fact for the jury to decide.

Summary of this case from Lowden v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway

In Baker, the question arose whether an injured plaintiff working for an alleged independent contractor was an "employee" of the railroad within the meaning of the FELA. At issue before the Court was whether that question should be submitted to a jury or decided by the trial court as a matter of law.

Summary of this case from Schroeder v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

stating that a court may only take a factual determination from the jury when reasonable jurors could only reach a single conclusion on the issue

Summary of this case from Gibbons v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.

In Baker v. Texas Pacific R. Co., 359 U.S. 227, 228, 79 S.Ct. 664, 665, 3 L.Ed.2d 756 (1959), the Court reaffirmed that for purposes of FELA, the question of employment, or master-servant status, is to be determined by reference to common-law principles.

Summary of this case from Wallenberg v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co.

In Baker, an employee of Nichols Company had been engaged to do work along the main line of the Texas Pacific on the right-of-way.

Summary of this case from Rodicker v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Case details for

Baker v. Texas P. R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:BAKER ET AL. v . TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY CO

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 6, 1959

Citations

359 U.S. 227 (1959)
79 S. Ct. 664

Citing Cases

Wallenberg v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co.

See Chicago R.I. P.R. Co. v. Bond, 240 U.S. 449, 36 S.Ct. 403, 60 L.Ed. 735 (1916). In Baker v. Texas …

Wilson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul

IV. ANALYSIS A. "The Federal Employers' Liability Act does not use the terms `employee' and `employed' in any…