## Facts

- Lonny Davis, an experienced railroad car inspector employed by Trailer Train Co., inspected Trailer Train cars in Conrail’s East St. Louis yard.
- Davis arrived in an unmarked van similar to Conrail yard vans and observed a long train that had been stopped and separated near the front, leaving a standing string of cars extending roughly three-quarters of a mile.
- Davis began inspecting cars and crawled underneath one near the western portion of the standing cut to check for defects.
- A Conrail crew coupled a locomotive to the eastern end of the string and received instructions to move the cars several lengths to clear a switch.
- The crew moved the cars without sounding a horn or ringing a bell.
- Davis heard air brakes activate, attempted to escape, and suffered catastrophic leg injuries when the cars moved.
- The cars were not “blue flagged,” a customary and legally recognized rail-yard safety practice intended to prevent train movement while work is performed.
- Davis knew of blue-flagging but neither placed flags nor requested Conrail personnel to do so before going under the cars.
- Evidence indicated Trailer Train had not implemented blue-flag or comparable safety rules and had not instructed Davis on such procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether Conrail breached a duty of reasonable care by moving the cars without an audible warning when workers could foreseeably be on, under, or around the train.
2. Whether the risk of injury to a worker near the cars was sufficiently foreseeable to require low-burden precautions such as sounding a horn or bell.
3. Whether Davis’s failure to blue-flag barred recovery or instead supported comparative fault reducing damages.
4. Whether Trailer Train was negligent for failing to provide safety rules and instruction and thus liable in contribution to Conrail under Illinois law.
5. Whether the jury’s fault allocations and causation findings were supported by sufficient evidence.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict applying Illinois negligence and comparative fault principles.
- The court upheld the finding that Conrail was negligent and that its negligence caused Davis’s injuries.
- The court upheld the finding that Davis was one-third comparatively at fault, reducing his $3 million damages to $2 million recoverable from Conrail.
- The court upheld the contribution verdict requiring Trailer Train to reimburse Conrail for one-third of Conrail’s $2 million liability based on Trailer Train’s share of responsibility.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may be found negligent for failing to take a low-burden precaution (such as an audible warning) when the probability and magnitude of harm make the precaution reasonable.
- Foreseeability in a rail-yard setting can support a duty to warn before moving cars because workers may commonly be on, under, or around trains, even absent proof the crew knew a specific worker was under a car.
- A plaintiff’s violation of a safety practice (including blue-flagging) does not necessarily bar recovery under comparative negligence; it may reduce damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault.
- Evidence that a safety practice is not consistently enforced may support treating the plaintiff’s violation as comparative fault rather than a complete defense to the defendant’s negligence.
- An employer in a hazardous industry may be found negligent for failing to implement and teach basic safety rules, supporting contribution to a jointly responsible tortfeasor.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury could reasonably find Conrail negligent for moving cars without an audible warning despite Davis’s failure to blue-flag, and it affirmed comparative fault and contribution findings assigning responsibility among Davis, Conrail, and Trailer Train.


Davis v. Consol. Rail Corp., 788 F.2d 1260 (7th Cir. 1986)