EDWARD VERNON WARNOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed summary judgment for railroad employer under FELA where prior incidents of thrown objects from track level did not provide notice of reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct from highway overpass.
An employer has no duty under FELA to protect employees from criminal conduct unless the employer had notice of substantially similar prior incidents that would make such conduct reasonably foreseeable.
[1] Under FELA, an employer's duty to protect employees from criminal conduct requires notice of substantially similar prior incidents; incidents of objects thrown from track…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWarnock, a locomotive engineer for Seaboard System Railroad, was injured when someone threw a sandbag through the windshield of his locomotive cab fro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantially Similar Incidents cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Edward Vernon Warnock, appeals a partial summary judgment entered against him on the first count of his complaint. He sought relief under the Federal Employee’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, for injuries he suffered while employed as an engineer for appellee, Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. (Seaboard). The trial judge based his summary judgment on the fact that Seaboard did not have sufficient notice of substantially similar incidents such as would cause Seaboard to take reasonable steps to protect its employees against reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. Burns v. Penn Central Co., 519 F. 2d 512 (2d Cir.1975). We agree with the trial judge and affirm.
Appellant was injured when someone on a highway overpass threw a sandbag through the windshield of the cab of the locomotive that appellant was operating. The only evidence in the record of past incidents of which appellee had knowledge consisted of appellant’s testimony that stones and bottles had been thrown from track level at the trains during the time that a bar existed in close proximity to Seaboard’s railroad track. The bar had burned down several years prior to this incident. There were no previous incidents of anything being thrown from the overpass down onto the track. The previous incidents testified to by appellant were not such as should have put appellee on notice that it should have taken steps to further protect the windshield of the locomotive from harassment from above.
Affirmed. SCHEB*, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.