Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Baugh

Supreme Court of the United States · 1893 · Civil Procedure

Civil Proceduregeneral lawfellow-servant rulemaster-servant liabilityrailroad employee liabilityfellow-servantsgeneral lawindependent federal judgment

Facts

The plaintiff was a fireman on a locomotive engine running alone, without a train attached, and the engineer operated that engine under a company rule stating that when no conductor was present the engineer would be regarded as conductor. The plaintiff was injured through the engineer's negligent operation of the engine, which led to a collision. The plaintiff knew the engine had no right to the track without orders and knew there was a local train somewhere between them and Bellaire, yet he rode on the engine without protest. The case turned on whether the engineer's status or control made him something other than a fellow-servant of the fireman.

Issue

Whether, in the absence of a statute, the engineer and fireman on a locomotive running by itself were fellow-servants so that the railroad was not liable to the fireman for injuries caused by the engineer's negligence. Also, whether the engineer's temporary designation as "conductor" under the company's rule changed that result.

Rule

Questions concerning a railroad corporation's liability to one employee for injuries caused by another employee are, absent statute, matters of general law. Prima facie, all employees serving the same master in the same enterprise are fellow-servants, and mere authority or control by one over another in a particular task does not alone make the superior a vice-principal. The master is liable only when the negligent act is in discharge of a positive duty of the master, such as using reasonable care to provide competent servants or a reasonably safe place and appliances, or when the negligent employee has entire and absolute control of a separate and distinct department of service.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Kim, a switchyard employee of Great Plains Rail Lines, was injured in Kansas City, Missouri, when a coworker mishandled a railcar. She sued in federal court after removal, and the Missouri Supreme Court had previously adopted a common-law rule on when one railroad employee may recover from the company for another employee's negligence, but no Missouri statute or local custom addressed the issue.

How should the federal court approach the governing rule?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, in the absence of statute, local usage, custom, or a rule of property, a railroad's liability to one employee for injuries caused by another employee is a matter of general law. Federal courts therefore exercise independent judgment, while leaning toward agreement with state courts where appropriate. The issue is not made local merely because a state court has announced a common-law rule on the subject. (Derived from Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Baugh (n.d.).)