HARRISON v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
No. 690.
Decided February 25, 1963.
Mark D. Eagleton for petitioner.
Ralph D. Walker for respondent.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The petitioner, a section foreman for respondent railroad, was assaulted by one of his section gang whom he accused of stealing a ballast fork. In this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., the petitioner was awarded damages by a jury in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. The trial judge set aside the verdict and granted respondent’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Appellate Court affirmed, 35 Ill. App. 2d 66, 181 N. E. 2d 737. Its judgment became final when the Illinois Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal. Ill. Rev. Stat., 1961, c. 110, § 75.
The trial judge granted respondent’s motion on the ground that “there was a lack of evidence to sustain” the jury’s verdict. The Appellate Court, in affirming, held that there was no evidence sufficient to support a finding that the respondent knew or should have known prior to the assault of propensities of the assailant to commit such assaults.
We think that the Illinois courts improperly invaded the function and province of the jury in this case. While “. . . reasonable foreseeability of harm is an essential ingredient of Federal Employers’ Liability Act negligence,” Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio B. Co., ante, p. 108, at 117, we have held that the fact that “the foreseeable danger was from intentional or criminal misconduct is irrelevant; respondent nonetheless had a duty to make reasonable provision against it.” Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U. S. 459, 462. The petitioner’s evidence was that his immediate superior, a roadmaster, assigned the assailant to petitioner’s crew and at the time warned him: “You will have to watch him because he is a bad actor and a trouble maker. You will have to watch him.” He also testified to having several times complained to the roadmaster about the assailant’s misconduct and refusal to follow his orders during the two months the assailant was with his crew. Finally, he testified that after the assault the roadmaster said to him: “I told you to look out for him. Now you got yourself in plenty of trouble.” This testimony was disputed but, if believed by the jury, it constituted probative facts sufficient to support the jury’s finding of foreseeability and withstand the respondent’s motion. McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U. S. 901; see also Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart would deny certiorari. See dissenting opinion of Frankfurter, J., and separate opinion of Harlan, J., in Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, 559; concurring opinion of Stewart, J., in Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp., 361 U. S. 107, 111; dissenting opinion of Harlan, J., in Callick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., ante, p. 122. The case having been taken, however, they concur in the judgment of the Court. 352 U. S., at 559-562; 361 U. S., at 111.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.