Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Petitioner was a spotting crew foreman working along the respondent railroad's right of way. Where petitioner was working on that afternoon, there had been for many years a pool of stagnant water, in and about which were dead and decayed rats and pigeons, or portions thereof. Respondent had long been aware of the fetid condition of this pool. Petitioner experienced a bite on his left leg just above the knee. The object under his trousers seemed to be a large insect and which, when he crushed it, dropped out of his trouser leg. The wound became infected. The infection failed to respond to medical treatment and worsened progressively until it spread throughout petitioner's body, creating pus-forming lesions and eventually necessitating the amputation of both his legs. The etiology of his present condition was somewhat of a mystery, although some of the doctors diagnosed or characterized it as 'pyodermagangrenosa, secondary to insect bite.' Petitioner alleged respondent's negligence both in permitting the stagnant pool to accumulate dead vermin and attract insects and in its furnishing a defective and unsafe place for petitioner's work. Respondent denied any negligence and contended such consequences 'were beyond the realm of reasonable probability or foreseeability, with the result that no duty arose' to exercise due care to protect petitioner 'from any such risk.' The court submitted some two dozen interrogatories to the jury and charged them as to what it deemed the applicable law of negligence. (They are listed in the casebook). The trial court entered judgment for petitioner. The court emphasized, however, that there was no 'direct evidence that the existence of the unidentified bug at the time and place had any connection with the stagnant and infested pool,' or had become infected by the pool with the substance that caused petitioner's infection, evidence which would negative the alternative possibility that the insect had emanated from 'the nearby putrid mouth of the Cuyahoga River, or from weeds, or unsanitary places situated on property not owned or controlled by the railroad.' The Court of Appeals, therefore, deemed the evidence merely 'a series of guesses and speculations . . . a chain of causation too tenuous to support a conclusion of liability.' It reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas and entered final judgment for respondent.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co