## Facts

- Alderman (plaintiff) was injured when a train operated by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company (B&O) (defendant) derailed.
- It was undisputed that the derailment was caused by a break in the rail.
- The break resulted from a defect that was not visible upon inspection and that can occur in both old and new rails.
- A B&O employee inspected the rail the day before the accident and did not detect the defect.
- Alderman was riding on a “trip pass” that provided free transportation rather than traveling as a fare-paying passenger.
- The trip pass included a disclaimer stating that the user waived B&O’s liability for injuries sustained while using the pass.
- Alderman sued B&O, asserting negligence and also willful and wanton misconduct.
- B&O moved for summary judgment, relying on the pass disclaimer and the absence of evidence that B&O acted willfully or wantonly.

## Issues

1. Does a liability disclaimer on a free trip pass bar a passenger’s claim for ordinary negligence arising from a derailment?
2. On the summary-judgment record, did Alderman present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find willful or wanton misconduct by B&O despite the pass disclaimer?

## Decision

- The court held that the trip-pass disclaimer barred Alderman’s claim based on ordinary negligence.
- The court recognized that a carrier cannot avoid liability for willful or wanton misconduct through a disclaimer.
- The court concluded that Alderman had not produced evidence creating a genuine dispute that B&O acted willfully or wantonly, where the derailment stemmed from a rail defect that was not observable on inspection and had not been detected in the inspection performed the day before.
- The court granted B&O’s motion for summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A passenger who accepts free transportation on a pass containing a clear waiver of liability may be bound by that waiver as to claims for ordinary negligence.
- Contractual waivers do not protect a defendant from liability for willful or wanton misconduct.
- Willful or wanton misconduct requires more than a failure to use reasonable care; it requires conduct showing reckless disregard for the safety of others or a conscious indifference to known or obvious risks.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the nonmoving party fails to produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in its favor on an essential element of the claim.

## Conclusion

Because Alderman rode on a free trip pass that waived B&O’s liability for ordinary negligence, her negligence theory was barred. Although a waiver cannot excuse willful or wanton misconduct, the undisputed evidence showed the derailment was caused by a rail defect not visible upon inspection and not detected by B&O’s inspection the day before. With no evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer reckless disregard or conscious indifference by B&O, the court granted summary judgment for the railroad.


Alderman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 113 F. Supp. 881 (1953)