Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Lillie v. Thompson

332 U.S. 459

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1947-12-08
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • reversing the district court’s finding that there was no causal connection between defendant’s failure to light and guard the premises and plaintiff’s injury, and remanding for a jury determination of whether defendant’s negligence at least partly caused plaintiff’s injuries
  • employer may have duty to protect employee against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties
  • plaintiff was injured after being sent into a high crime area by her employer who had actual knowledge of the high frequency of criminal activity
  • employment conditions requiring employee to work alone in isolated section of dangerous area and to admit anyone who knocked into building lacking windows and outside light foreseeably enhanced risk of criminal attack
  • intentional assault of a railroad employee by a non-employee

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lillie v. Thompson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
151 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Transportation Law — Pleading and Proof A complaint under the Federal Employers' Liability Act states a cause of action where it alleges that the railroad knew the conditions of the employee's work created a likelihood of injury from third-party criminal acts and failed to take reasonable measures to protect the employee against that foreseeable danger, resulting in injury. 332 U.S. at 460-461
  2. Remedies — Foreseeability of Third-Party Criminal Conduct Where an employer knows of conditions creating a likelihood that an employee will suffer injury from the intentional or criminal misconduct of a third party, the danger's origin in criminal acts is irrelevant; the employer nonetheless owes a duty to make reasonable provision against that foreseeable harm, and breach of that duty is negligence. 332 U.S. at 461-462
  3. Transportation Law — Causation Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, recovery is available where the employee's injury results in whole or in part from the carrier's negligence; causation is a question for the jury where the pleaded facts, if supported by evidence, would warrant a finding that the injury resulted at least in part from the employer's failure to take reasonable protective measures against a foreseeable danger. 332 U.S. at 460-462
LILLIEv. THOMPSON,332 U.S. 459(1947)
68 S.Ct. 140
LILLIEv. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT.
No. 206.
Decided November 24, 1947.
A complaint under the Federal Employers' Liability Act alleged that the hours, location and circumstances of the complainant's work created a likelihood that she would suffer injuries through the criminal acts of a person not an employee; that the railroad failed to exercise its duty of taking reasonable measures to protect her against the foreseeable danger, and that she suffered injuries as a result of the railroad's failure to take such measures.Held:1. The complaint stated a cause of action under the Act. Pp. 460-461. 2. That the danger was from criminal misconduct by an outsider is irrelevant. If that danger was foreseeable, the railroad had a duty to make reasonable provision against it. Pp. 461-462. 162 F.2d 716, reversed.
Petitioner's suit against a railroad for damages under the
Federal Employers' Liability Act was dismissed by the District
Court for failure to state a cause of action. The Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed. 162 F.2d 716. This
Page 460
Court grants a petition for certiorari, reverses the judgment,
and remands the case to the District Court, p. 462.
Grover N. McCormickandN. Murry Edwardsfor petitioner.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner sued for damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.1The essence of her claim was that she was injured as a result of the respondent's negligence in sending her to work in a place he knew to be unsafe without taking reasonable measures to protect her.

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and entered summary judgment for the respondent. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. 162 F.2d 716.

There is thus a single issue in the case: Could it be found from the facts alleged in the complaint, as supplemented by any uncontroverted allegations by the respondent, that petitioner's injuries resulted at least in part from respondent's negligence?2

Petitioner's allegations may be summarized as follows:

Respondent required her, a 22-year-old telegraph operator, to work alone between 11:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. in a one-room frame building situated in an isolated part of respondent's railroad yards in Memphis. Though respondent had reason to know the yards were frequented by dangerous characters, he failed to exercise reasonable carePage 461to light the building and its surroundings or to guard or patrol it in any way. Petitioner's duties were to receive and deliver messages to men operating trains in the yard. In order for the trainmen to get the messages it was necessary for them to come to the building at irregular intervals throughout the night, and it was petitioner's duty to admit them when they knocked. Because there were no windows in the building's single door or on the side of the building in which the door was located, petitioner could identify persons seeking entrance only by unlocking and opening the door. About 1:30 a.m. on the night of her injury petitioner responded to a knock, thinking that some of respondent's trainmen were seeking admission. She opened the door, and before she could close it a man entered and beat her with a large piece of iron, seriously and permanently injuring her.

In support of his motion for summary judgment respondent alleged, and petitioner did not deny, that the assailant was not an employee of the respondent and that the attack was criminal.

The district court stated, in explanation of its action, that there would be no causal connection between the injury and respondent's failure to light or guard the premises, and that the law does not permit recovery "for the intentional or criminal acts" of either a fellow-employee or an outsider.3

We are of the opinion that the allegations in the complaint, if supported by evidence, will warrant submission to a jury. Petitioner alleged in effect that respondent was aware of conditions which created a likelihood that a young woman performing the duties required of petitionerPage 462would suffer just such an injury as was in fact inflicted upon her. That the foreseeable danger was from intentional or criminal misconduct is irrelevant; respondent nonetheless had a duty to make reasonable provision against it.4Breach of that duty would be negligence, and we cannot say as a matter of law that petitioner's injury did not result at least in part from such negligence. The cases cited by the district court,5we believe, do not support the broad proposition enunciated by it, and do not cover the fact situation set forth by the pleadings in this case.

Certiorari is granted, and the judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the district court.Reversed.Page 463
  1. Page 46045 U.S.C. § 51. ↩
  2. Page 460 "Every common carrier by railroad . . . shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier . . . for such injury . . . resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier. . . ."Ibid.

    It is not questioned that respondent was engaged in interstate commerce and that petitioner was injured while employed in such commerce. ↩
  3. Page 461 The court citedDavisv.Green,260 U.S. 349(1922);St.Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v.Mills,271 U.S. 344(1926);Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v.Southwell,275 U.S. 64(1927); andAtlanta Charlotte Air Line R. Co. v.Green,279 U.S. 821(1929), reversingper curiam151 S.C. 1,148 S.E. 633. ↩
  4. Page 462 See Restatement of Torts, § 302, Commentn:

    "n. The actor's conduct may create a situation which affords an opportunity or temptation to third persons to commit more serious forms of misconducts which may be of any of several kinds. (1) The third person may intend to bring about the very harm which the other sustains. . . . The actor is required to anticipate and provide against all of these misconducts under the following conditions in all of which it is immaterial to the actor's civil liability that the third person's misconduct is or is not criminal. . .:

    . . . . .

    "8. where he knows of peculiar conditions which create a strong likelihood of intentional or reckless misconduct (see Illustrations 21 and 22).

    "Illustrations:

    . . . . .

    "21. The employees of the X and Y Railroad Company are on a strike. They or their sympathizers have torn up tracks, misplaced switches and otherwise attempted to wreck trains. A train of the X and Y Company is wrecked by an unguarded switch so misplaced. A, a passenger, and B, a traveler upon a highway adjacent to the track sustain harm. The X and Y Company is liable to A and B because it did not guard the switch." ↩
  5. Page 462 See note 3,supra. ↩