Dennis v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company/Dissent Harlan

Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.

I do not believe this case should have been taken for review and I now dissent from the reversal of the judgment of the Utah Supreme Court, for reasons already expressed in past cases of this type. See Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 559, 77 S.Ct. 443, 459, 1 L.Ed.2d 493; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U.S. 512, 559, 77 S.Ct. 451, 459, 1 L.Ed.2d 503; Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521, 559, 77 S.Ct. 457, 459, 1 L.Ed.2d 511, 515; Arnold v. Panhandle & S.F.R. Co., 353 U.S. 360, 361, 77 S.Ct. 840, 841, 1 L.Ed.2d 889; Harris v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 361 U.S. 15, 25, 80 S.Ct. 22, 28, 4 L.Ed.2d 1; Davis v. Virginian R. Co., 361 U.S. 354, 358, 80 S.Ct. 387, 289, 4 L.Ed.2d 366; Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325, 332, 81 S.Ct. 6, 11, 12, 5 L.Ed.2d 20; Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 122, 83 S.Ct. 659, 668, 9 L.Ed.2d 618; Basham v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 372 U.S. 699, 701, 83 S.Ct. 965, 967, 10 L.Ed.2d 80.

In this instance we are not even precisely informed by the Court's opinion wherein the respondent's conduct was negligent. The means for requiting unfortunate industrial accidents of this sort should be found not in destroying the supervisory power of the courts over jury verdicts unsupported by evidence of employer fault, but in legislative expansion of the concepts of workmen's compensation laws, under which compensation is not dependent upon a showing of employer negligence. Cf. Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., supra.