Alexander F. KOSHOREK, Appellant, v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.
No. 13814.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued April 2, 1962. Reargued Nov. 23, 1962. Decided May 29, 1963.
Rehearing Denied July 16, 1963.
318 F.2d 364
Matthew J. Broderick, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, GANEY, Circuit Judge, and SHERIDAN, District Judge.
BIGGS, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff-appellant, Koshorek, from a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of the Railroad Company1 and the denial of his motion for a new trial.2 The case arises
Koshorek, 65 years old at the time of the trial, had been employed by the Railroad for a period of 34 years, the last 18 of which were spent as a car repairman in Passenger Shop Number 1 at Altoona, Pennsylvania. Late in 1957 he began to develop symptoms that indicated possible lung disease and in January of 1958 he stopped work.3
The suit at bar rests on the theory that repair operations conducted in the passenger shop raisеd dust and sand into the air in sufficient quantities to create a silica hazard and that the Railroad had been negligent in failing to mitigate or prevent this hazard. Koshorek contends that his lung condition, diagnosed as pulmonary emphysema and fibrosis4 was attributable to silicosis contracted as a result of exposure to the silica hazard.
The evidence at the trial on the issue of whether a silica hazard had existed in the shop was sharply conflicting. Koshorek testified that metal covering plates on the bottoms of railroad cars were customarily dropped to the floor of the shop in order to gain access to the underside of the cars for repairs and that large amounts of dirt and sand were caused by this to fly into the air. He also stated that high pressure аir hoses were used inside the shop for cleaning the cars, causing clouds of dust to circulate, and that the air inside the building was dusty and cloudy on several occasions. Other employees, however, testified that the operations referred to were rarely if ever performed inside the building, that the air was clear and shop well-ventilated, and that respirators were always available in the event they might become necessary, though Koshorek had never asked for one.
The medical evidence also was somewhat inconclusive, although the diagnosis of Koshorek‘s condition as pulmonary emphysema and fibrosis was generally agreed upon. His medical experts testified that his condition was due to silicosis which in turn had been caused by exposure to the alleged silica hazard in the shop. On cross-examination, however, these witnesses admitted that they had not made any actual dust studies of the air in the shop and, further, that the fibrosis could have been caused by many things other than silicosis. Medical experts called by the Railroad stated that Koshorek was not suffering from silicosis and that his lung condition had been caused by the inhalation of coal dust5
Koshorek contends that the trial court committed error in refusing his request that the jury be instructed that he did not assume the risks of his employment.6
Judge Egan charged the jury on the issue of comparative negligence, instructing them that even if they should find Koshorek to have been negligent this would not bar his recovery but instead would mitigate the damages,7 but the court‘s instructions did not distinguish the doctrine of comparative negligence from that of assumption of risk. In fact, no reference to assumption of risk was made at all, either by name or in substance. Koshorek had requested the court to define the doctrine of assumption of risk and to charge that under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act assumption of risk could not constitute a full or even a partial defense.8 The court denied this request, stating that the point had been adequately covered by its charge as to the Railroad‘s affirmative duties.9 We think a more detailed
The doctrine of comparative negligence has been a part of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act since its original enactment. See
The retention of the doctrine of comparative negligence and the abrogation of the defense of assumption of risk necessitates that a careful distinction between the two concepts be made in a case such as that at bar arising under the Act. If Koshorek‘s own conduct in relation to his injury be characterized as contributory negligence the Railroad may have a partial defense as to the amount of damages. If the same conduct be found to have constituted assumption of risk Koshorek‘s right to recover could not be affected in any respect. In Prosser, Torts § 55 (1955), 304-305, it is stated: “[W]here the two de-fenses overlap, there is a great deal of confusion of the two. Ordinarily it makes little difference which the defense is called. The distinction may become important, however, under such statutes as the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, which has now abrogated the defense of assumption of risk entirely, but has left, contributory negligence as a partial defense reducing the amount of recovery. In working out the distinction, the courts have arrivеd at the conclusion that assumption of risk is a matter of knowledge of the danger and intelligent acquiescence in it, while contributory negligence is a matter of some fault or departure from the standard of reasonable conduct, however unwilling or protesting the plaintiff may be. The two may co-exist, or either may exist without the other. The difference is frequently one between risks which were in fact known to the plaintiff, or so obvious that he must be taken to have known of them, and risks which he merely might have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care.” See also Potter v. Brittan, 286 F.2d 521 (3 Cir. 1961).
The Railroad relies on Seaboldt v. Pennsylvania R. R., 290 F.2d 296 (3 Cir. 1961), in support of the position that assumption of risk was properly not included in the trial court‘s charge to the jury. It is urged that assumption of risk was not a defense nor was it even mentioned in the trial of the сase at bar and therefore would not be a proper subject of instruction to the jury.
We think that the Seaboldt decision cannot be regarded as determining the appеal at bar. As we have said Seaboldt was decided on grounds other than that of error in the charge. The language of the court relating to that issue is, at most, dictum.14 Moreover, it appears from the language of the opinion as quoted above, that this court‘s primary objection to the inclusion of assumption of risk in the charge was that the doctrine was “thrown into the jury‘s mind at the last minute” without clear explanation of the doctrine and its relation to comparative negligence. See Seaboldt again at p. 300 of 290 F.2d.
Nor is De Pascale v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 180 F.2d 825 (3 Cir. 1950), helpful to the defendant. In the cited case a railroad conductor brought suit against the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for injuries suffered as the result of a fall while he was walking in the train yard. The plaintiff testified that the ground beneath his feet had simply given way and his leg “went down into the hole completely.” He further testified that the ground “looked just like the rest, it seemed solid.” At the close of the evidence, the plaintiff requested that the court charge the jury with respect to the inapplicability of the doctrine of assumption of risk. The request was denied. On the appeal by the plaintiff from an adverse judgment, we affirmed on the ground that the failure to include assumption of risk in the charge was not error. Judge McLaughlin stated: “Assumption of risk was definitely not important in this case. There was no suggestion regarding it during the course of the trial. Under the circumstances, though not specifically referred to, it was sufficiently covered by the charge. The charge * * * directly instructed the jury that if they found the railroad at fault and that the fault contributed proximately to thе accident, then it became simply a question of how much damages
An examination of the facts in the cited case reveals a clear distinction between them and those of the case at bar. De Pascale‘s injury, as we have said, was sustained as the result of a ground cave-in beneath his leg. By his own testimony, quoted above, De Pascale made it clear that he was not aware of any possible danger. In the case at bar, Koshorek had worked for many years in the shop and testified that he had long been aware of dust in the air. It therefore appears, we think, that assumption of risk was not involved in the factual situation in De Pascale, but was presented by the circumstances in the case at bar. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949); Blair v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 323 U.S. 600 (1945). See also Prosser, Torts, supra.15
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Burkett, 192 F.2d 941 (5 Cir. 1951), presents a useful analogy to the case at bar in that circumstances were present in Burkett which strongly suggested assumption of risk by him. Burkett and another repairman were carrying a heavy rail, one holding up each end, with the plaintiff walking backwards. He sustained injuries as the result of tripping over a pile of debris lying on the ground. The court charged the jury with reference to assumption of risk. “I charge you further * * * that in any action brought against any common carrier under * * * [the Act] to recover damages for injuries to any of its employees, such employee shall not be held to have assumed the risks of his employment in any case where such injury resulted in whole or in part from the negligence of * * * such carrier.” The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the inclusion of a reference to assumption of risk in the charge to the jury was proper. “[W]e think that the trial judge was justified in thinking that in the absence of a charge on assumption of risk, the jury might have considered that defense under the guise of non-negligence. * * *” Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Burkett, supra, 192 F.2d at p. 943.
Koshorek testified that the air in the shop contained dust and it follows that he either knew or should have known that inhalation of excessive dust over an extended period of time might cause him harm. Because of this the jury reasonably could have believed or inferred that he himself was responsible for the harm that befell him. As we have said, the trial judge instructed the jury on the applicability of the doctrine of comparative negligence but did not distinguish and exclude from its scope those aspects of the plaintiff‘s conduct with regard to his employment which, prior to the 1939 amendment, would have been cаtegorized as the doctrine of assumption of risk. He should have done so for the distinction between the two kinds of conduct is often very difficult even for a court to make and a jury of laymen scarcely can be expected to do so successfully. The difficulties of making the distinction are suggested in Potter v. Brittan, supra, and vividly in Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Ry., 205 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1907), wherein Mr. Justice Holmes stated: “Assumption of risk in [the] broad sense obviously shades into negligence as commonly understood. * * * But the difference between the two is one of degree rather than of kind; and when a statute exonerates a servant from the former, if at the same time it leaves the defense of contributory negligence still open to the master, * * * then, unless great care be taken, the servant‘s rights will be sacrificed by simply charging him with assumption of risk under another name.”16 Had an ade-
Koshorek asserts also that certain evidence given by Dr. David N. Bishop, the Medical Director of the Railroad at Altoona, was admitted erroneously over timely and adequate objection. The testimony we refer to was a summation by Dr. Bishop to the effect that over 8,000 X-rays of the lungs of the Railroad‘s employees, taken by the Railroad some years after Koshorek ceased to be employed in Shop No. 1, failed to show the presence of silicosis. It was clear that Dr. Bishop had not examined the X-rays himself but that they had been examined by a part-time radiologist in the Railroad‘s medical department. At sidebar the Railroad‘s counsel made the following offer of proof: “[I]t is my intention to prove by this witness that of the 8,000 X-rays taken, they were taken of employees who worked in the Altoona Shops * * * either a number of years * * * or only a few years, that at the present time [June 1961] there are only 5,000 employees in the Altoona Shops; that on the basis of the X-rays, the X-ray findings of the persons employed in the Altoona Car Shops, the Altoona Works, there has not been one instance of silicosis shown by those X-rays.
“My purpose in introducing this evidence is to establish, one, that if there is a silicosis hazard in Altoona and if silica is present in these shops in sufficient quantities to cause silicosis, then it would be only reasonable to expect that more than one person would be complaining or would have silicosis. Silicosis is not something you are particularly suscepti-ble to. If you are placed in a room and there is sufficient concentration there and you are there over a period of years, you will develop silicosis. It seems to me in view of the fact that we have had the testimony of Drs. Brieger and Theodos who have had no familiarity with the shop at all, who have never even been there and made a conclusion that they think there is a causal connection between that shop, the working conditions of that shop, and the condition of the plaintiff, that I am entitled to pursue this line of questioning with Dr. Bishop.”
Koshorek‘s counsel objected, saying, “I do not consider that the testimony to be elicited from this witness can come in unless the doctor in question can say that he has personally examined one of the employees, particularly the employees who have worked in this particular shop, and that he is familiar with their physical condition and their X-rays, and he can say they do not have silicosis.” The court said: “In other words, you are entering a general objection on the ground that you have just stated?” Upon Koshorek‘s counsel answering in the affirmative, the court immediately made its ruling, stating, “I will permit the testimony. I will overrule your objection and allow you an exception. I think the jury will have to evaluate this case in light of the situation prevailing in Altoona.”
It will be noted that Koshorek‘s objection was broad indeed and that it may be considered as an objection to the admission of the X-rays on the ground of hearsay, as it is now contended, though that word was not used. It is possible that other serious grounds of objection, such as failure to lay an adequate foundation for the testimony of Dr. Bishop or even the remoteness of the time when the X-rays were taken from the date of the termination of Koshorek‘s employment, may lurk in the words used by counsel. Of this we cannot be sure
It would be well to have the scope of Dr. Bishop‘s testimony delineated as precisely as possible at a pretrial conference and that the parties brief the difficult subject of the admission of the X-ray testimony adequately.17
We desire to make it plain that we do not presently rule on the admissibility of any of the evidence received at the trial from Dr. Bishop.
The judgment will be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial with the direction to proceed in accordance with this opinion.
GANEY, Circuit Judge (dissenting).
I dissent from the result here reached by the majority.
It is here held that the failure of the trial judge tо distinguish between the doctrine of assumption of risk and that of contributory negligence, under the factual situation obtaining, is reversible error.
It is of first importance here to remember, (1) that the jury having heard nothing about the doctrine of assumption of risk from any witness in the case, or from any pleading, document, etc., or from the court, it, accordingly, was ignorant of any consequences flowing from such doctrine; and (2) that this Court found no quarrel with the trial judge‘s charge with respect to negligence or contributory negligence, as such, and, affirmatively, it must be said that the charge with respect to these matters was clear and precise, but only that its fail-ure, as has been adverted to above, to differentiate assumption of risk from contributory negligence was fatal error.
The facts here are neither peculiar nor unique and turn only on the question of the alleged negligence of the defendant in maintaining a hazardous silicon condition in the shop where the plaintiff worked for eighteen years and, as a result thereof, contracted silicosis. A verdict was rendered for the defendant.
The majority believe that a more detailed explanation should have been given to the jury by way of defining the doctrine of assumption of risk and states: “Had an adequate distinction between conduct constituting contributory negligence and that which would have constituted assumption of risk been pointed out to the jurors in the charge, the jury might well have reached a different verdict. In our opinion the failure to charge properly as to this distinction constituted reversible error under the circumstances.”
In the first instance, it seems to me rather clear, since the verdict was for the defendant, that the jury could have only reached the conclusion it did on the ground, (1) that the plaintiff was not suffering from silicosis, as the defendant‘s medical experts contended, or (2) that the defendant was not negligent. The jury, accordingly, never reached the question of contributory negligence, for if plaintiff was found suffering from silicosis and not having been found negligent, they could not possibly have gotten to the question of contributory negligence. If by some means they did, there would have been a verdict for the plaintiff for at least one dollar and, of course, if they found he did not have silicosis, they, likewise, would not have reached the question of cоntributory negligence, as that would have been the end of the case.
Basic to the question here involved, is the amendment to the Federal Employ-
In considering the amendment, the Supreme Court, in Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 318 U.S. 54 (1943), said, with finality, that every vestige of the doctrine of assumption of risk was obliterated. Furthermore, in Gowins v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 299 F.2d 431 (6 Cir. 1962), there was occasion to quote Mr. Justice Frankfurter‘s concurring opinion in the Tiller case, supra, 318 U.S. at p. 72, wherein he stated: “Because of its ambiguity the phrase ‘assumption of risk’ is a hazardous legal tool. As a means of instructing a jury, it is bound to create confusion. It should therefore be discarded.” Further, in the Court‘s opinion in Gowins v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., supra, 299 F.2d at p. 433, it was stated: “If the instruction on contributory negligence was a correct one, we do not think it was error to refuse to instruct on the question of assumption of risk. De Pascale v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 180 F.2d 825, 827 (3rd Cir. 1950).”
In Seaboldt v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 290 F.2d 296 (3 Cir. 1961), the sage admonition of the late Judge Goodrich, quoted in the majority opinion, has genuinely compelling force here.
In Potter v. Brittan, 286 F.2d 521 (3 Cir. 1961), cited by the majority, it was necessary for the Court to point up both contributory negligence and assumption of risk because in Massachusetts both were available as a defense which, of course, does not obtain in this instance.
In Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949), cited by the majority, the plaintiff had worked thirty years as a fireman on steam locomotives and ceased work in May, 1940, because he alleged that over the years he had contracted silicosis because of his inhalation, in the performance of his job, of silica dust in the air which came from the sand used in the locomotive sandboxes and sucked into the cab in which he worked. The holding of the court in reversing the Missouri Supreme Court was that under both the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and its implеmenting Act, the Boiler Inspection Act, this occupational hazard was compensable. Since the amendment to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act barring the doctrine of assumption of risk as a defense went into effect in August, 1939, it can be seen that the vast portion of the plaintiff‘s cause of action was subject to this defense and the only reference to the doctrine, since no instruction with respect to it was asked for and none given, was footnote 18, page 180, of 337 U.S., which states: “Nor do we find merit in respondent‘s contention that Urie, prior to the 1939 amendment abolishing assumption of risk as a defense to ordinary negligence suits under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act,
I have no quarrel with Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1907), cited by the majority, as Mr. Justice Holmes’ treatment of the doctrine of assumption of risk concerns itself with the year 1906 when the doctrine was likewise available as a defense.
In Blair v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 323 U.S. 600 (1945), also cited by the majority, suit was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant in the Allegheny County Courts for injuries occurring on June 26, 1939, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for negligence which, as can be seen, was previous to the 1939 amendment. After the plaintiff had secured a verdict, a new trial was granted by the trial judge because he alleged he erred in submitting to the jury defendant‘s liability for failure to provide adequate equipment for the work, as well as failure to provide sufficient help, and the carelessness of its employees, and that after reflection, he concluded there was no evidence adequate to support these findings and, as has been adverted to, allowed a new trial. Both parties appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which reversed the matter, holding that the petitioner had assumed the risk of injury by remaining in the employment and that there was no evidence to support negligence in any respect. Here, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and remanded the case for a new trial. It is stated at 323 U.S. at p. 605: “The court below, however, thought that the plaintiff should not recover because he had assumed the risk of this danger. It is to be noted that at the time this case was tried Congress had passed an act which completely abolished the defense of assumption of risk. 53 Stat. 1404. Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line, supra.”
In Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Burkett, 192 F.2d 941 (5 Cir. 1951), which the majority cites, the defendant adverted, in his answer, that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff resulted entirely and solely from his negligence which, in effect, was the doctrine of assumption of risk under another name. In view of this, the trial court‘s charge stated, at page 943 of 192 F.2d: “I charge you further, gentlemen of the jury, that in any action brought against any common carrier under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this chapter to recover damages for injuries to any of its employees, such employee shall not be held to have assumed the risks of his employment in any case whеre such injury resulted in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier.” The Court of Appeals then went on to say: “Other parts of the charge emphasized the necessity of proof of the defendant‘s negligence as a prerequisite to a verdict for the plaintiff.” The Court then stated, by way of affirmance of the trial judge‘s charge, the following: “Under the pleadings and evidence in this case, we think that the trial judge was justified in thinking that in the absence of a charge on assumption of risk, the jury might have considered that defense under the guise of non-negligence. As said in the Tiller case, supra [318 U.S. 54, 58 (1943)]: ‘Unless great care be taken, the servant‘s rights will be sacrificed by simply charging him with assumption of risk under another name’ “. It is apparent here that by reаson of the pleading, particularly the answer, that there was justification for the court advising the jury that the plaintiff did not assume the risks of his employment, which is a far cry from giving a mandate that the court must bring the doctrine into play without any necessity therefor, shown by the defendant in any pleadings, evidence, documents, etc. The case is distinguishable on this ground, for otherwise it would be against the weight of authority.
In Ramsouer v. Midland Valley R. R. Co., 135 F.2d 101 (8 Cir. 1943), cited in the majority opinion, footnote 15, the injury occurred on January 10, 1937, and, of course, discussion of assumption of risk
Therefore, it would seem, in the light of precedent to date, that the doctrine of assumption of risk is non-existent and, аlthough the phrase is sometimes loosely used, it merely means that the defendant is not negligent, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter points out in his concurring opinion to the Tiller case at p. 69 of 318 U.S.: “Industrial enterprise entails, for all those engaged in it, certain hazards to life and limb which no amount of care on the part of the employer can avoid. In denying recovery to an employee injured as a result of exposure to such a hazard, where the employer has in no sense been negligent or derelict in the duty owed to his employees, courts have often said that the employee ‘assumed the risk.’ Here the phrase ‘assumption of risk’ is used simply to convey the idea that the employer was not at fault and therefore not liable.”
However, the trial judge, here, in order to properly cоmply with the opinion expressed by the majority, would, of necessity, have been compelled to define to the jury the common law doctrine of assumption of risk in its entirety, since the plaintiff‘s conduct embraced the whole factual area, and then to properly instruct them on the doctrine of contributory negligence. Since the amendment of 1939 abolished the doctrine of assumption of risk as a defense, it is extremely difficult to determine to what effect, and what purpose, this differentiation would have served. It can no longer be doubted that the doctrine of assumption of risk as a defense to any liability, where there is negligence on the part of the employer, has been written out of the Act, and if it cannot avail itself of this defense in the main actiоn, it, of necessity, must follow that it is written out of the Act where it pleads the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, a defense making for mitigation of its liability.
If the purpose of the majority here required the trial judge to warn the jury that risks, knowingly taken by the plaintiff, obviously observable to him, and acquiesced by him over a period of time, were not to be considered by the jury, in its determination of whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, it would be an almost insuperable task for the trial judge to distinguish for the jury this factual area, from that area in which the plaintiff‘s conduct is to be measured by the standard of due care under the circumstances. This for the reason that the risks, adverted to above, would be a complete bar to the plaintiff‘s recovery, while violation of the standard of cаre required of him would be only partially so.
It is sufficient to say that since the amendment of 1939, one must consider the whole ball, due care under all the circumstances. This latter phrase envelops the whole factual area of the plaintiff‘s conduct and takes into consideration all of the conditions surrounding his employment, and if he is injured by the obvious and that which is plainly observable, to that extent he violates the standard of care imposed upon him and his recovery in damages is mitigated to that degree from that which he would otherwise recover under the doctrine of comparative negligence as provided for in the Act. Additionally, to contrast a doctrine no longer available as a defense with contributory negligence, which is available, tо mitigate damages to the defendant, would seem to me to be a futile gesture insofar as it might be helpful to the plaintiff.
So under the proper charge given by the court, what the jury was concerned with and what the plaintiff does assume are not the risks of his employment, since the amendment, but the risk of economic loss occasioned by his violating a standard of care to which he is held.
Again, to detail this legal refinement, even assuming something of vigor does remain in the doctrine, would make it requisite for the trial judge to spell
I would affirm the judgment of the lower court.