Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Henthorne

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896 · Evidence

Evidencegeneral reputation evidencehabitual drunkennessincompetencynegligent retentionnotice to employersuspension authoritymaster's nondelegable duty

Facts

The plaintiff was injured in an accident allegedly caused by Harrison, the engineer, whose drunken condition was supported by evidence as a cause of the accident and by evidence that he was habitually drunk. The trial court admitted evidence of Harrison's general reputation for drunkenness and consequent incompetency as an engineer. The company argued that such evidence was improper and that only higher officers could receive notice of incompetency, while evidence showed lower officers such as the yard master, master mechanic, and train master had power to suspend an engineer for intoxication or dereliction of duty. The plaintiff testified he did not know of Harrison's drunkenness, and the jury was instructed he could not recover if he did know of it.

Issue

Whether evidence of an engineer's general reputation for habitual drunkenness was admissible to show the railroad's negligence in retaining him, and whether officers with authority to suspend an employee could be treated as agents whose knowledge of incompetency was the company's knowledge. The court also considered whether the contributory-negligence issue, the damages instruction, and denial of a new trial required reversal.

Rule

A master has a positive, nondelegable duty to use reasonable care in selecting, retaining, and supervising competent employees. Evidence of an employee's general reputation for habitual drunkenness is admissible to show that the employer, through proper supervision, knew or should have known of the employee's unfitness, but such reputation evidence is not admissible to prove the employee was drunk on the particular occasion. An officer authorized to suspend an employee for incompetency or intoxication is an agent authorized to receive notice of that incompetency for the company, and that officer's failure to use due diligence in observing and acting on such incompetency is the company's negligence.

🔒

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.

In Toledo, a switchyard worker employed by Lake Meridian Freight Lines was injured when a locomotive operator allegedly caused a low-speed collision while intoxicated. At trial, the worker offers testimony that the operator was widely known around the yard as a habitual heavy drinker, along with other evidence that the operator had been drinking on the day of the collision.

For what purpose is the reputation testimony most properly admissible?

Explanation. The majority approved evidence of an employee's general reputation for habitual drunkenness when accompanied by evidence that drunkenness caused the accident and evidence of habitual drinking, because it tends to show negligent retention and notice of unfitness. The court specifically rejected using such reputation evidence as proof that the employee was drunk on the particular occasion.