Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Baugh
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 368 (1893)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
John Baugh (plaintiff) was the fireman on a Baltimore & O.R. Co. (B&O) (defendant) locomotive (the locomotive). As Baugh knew, B&O policy permitted helper locomotives to return to the yards only on the dispatcher’s special orders or by following a scheduled train. After helping a train, the locomotive’s engineer started back without special orders and not following a scheduled train. The locomotive and a train collided, causing Baugh to lose limbs. Baugh sued B&O in Ohio. B&O removed the case to federal court. The jury was instructed that B&O was liable if Baugh was injured because of the negligence of someone placed in authority over him. The jury found for Baugh. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether Baugh and the engineer were fellow servants, which would preclude Baugh from recovering for the engineer’s negligence. Baugh argued that the engineer was not his fellow servant because Railroad Co. v. Ross held that a conductor was not a fellow servant of his subordinates on the train and a B&O rule provided that the engineer was to be regarded as the conductor in the conductor’s absence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brewer, J.)
Dissent (Fuller, C.J.)
Dissent (Field, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.