Biggs v. Terminal Railroad Association
Illinois Appellate Court
442 N.E.2d 1353, 110 Ill. App. 3d 709 (1982)
- Written by Jose Espejo , JD
Facts
Rodney Steven Biggs (plaintiff) was employed as a track laborer for Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (Terminal Railroad) (defendant). During his employment, Biggs and another employee, Robert Parr, went to work in a toolshed. Parr asked Ron Gartner, the track foreman, whether he could beat up Biggs. Shortly thereafter, Gartner left the shed, and Parr punched Biggs in the jaw. Once outside of the shed, Parr began grabbing Biggs, who reacted by striking Parr with a railroad spike. Parr picked up a pickax and threatened Biggs, but Parr did not strike Biggs. After Biggs went back to work, Parr struck Biggs on the head with a railroad spike. Following the incident, Biggs sued Terminal Railroad in circuit court under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while employed as a track laborer. Biggs argued based on the facts there was sufficient evidence to show that Gartner was aware of Parr’s violent propensities, citing the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Harrison v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., in which there was sufficient evidence to show that a roadmaster had been aware of an assailant-employee’s vicious nature. The circuit court entered judgment against Terminal Railroad. Terminal Railroad appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Karns, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
