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 ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.