## Facts

- Anthony Gallick worked for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (B&O) as a spotting crew foreman in the Cuyahoga River flats near Cleveland, Ohio.
- For years, B&O’s right-of-way included a stagnant pool containing dead and decayed animals; insects were observed around it, and B&O knew of the condition.
- In August 1954, Gallick suffered an insect bite while working near the pool; the bite became infected and ultimately led to amputation of both legs.
- Gallick sued B&O under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligent maintenance of the vermin- and insect-infested pool caused his injury.
- The case was submitted to a jury on a special verdict with interrogatories; the jury found B&O knew of the pool, found a causal relation between B&O’s act or omission and Gallick’s injury, and linked the injury to the pool, but also answered that the specific injury was not “reasonably foreseeable.”
- The trial court entered judgment for Gallick on the special verdict.
- The Ohio intermediate appellate court reversed, concluding the causation evidence was insufficient for jury consideration and the interrogatory answers were fatally inconsistent; further review was denied in the state system.

## Issues

1. Whether a reviewing court in a FELA action may overturn a jury verdict by rejecting the jury’s permissible inferences on causation and foreseeability.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to find that B&O’s negligent maintenance of the stagnant pool caused Gallick’s injury.
3. Whether the jury’s special verdict answers were so inconsistent as to require setting aside the verdict rather than reconciling the answers.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ohio appellate court and reinstated the judgment for Gallick.
- The Court held the record contained sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that B&O’s negligence concerning the pool played a causal role in Gallick’s injury.
- The Court held foreseeability was satisfied by the jury’s finding that maintaining the filthy, insect-attracting pool was negligent; the railroad need not foresee the exact medical sequence or extent of harm.
- The Court held the special verdict answers were not fatally inconsistent; courts must, where fairly possible, read the answers in a consistent manner rather than nullify the verdict.
- The Court concluded the state appellate court improperly displaced the jury’s function by demanding more exact causal proof and by refusing to harmonize the interrogatory answers.

## Legal Principles

- In FELA cases, negligence, causation, and foreseeability are primarily for the jury when supported by evidence from which reasonable inferences may be drawn.
- A reviewing court may not set aside a FELA verdict merely because it would draw different inferences or because causation is not shown with scientific certainty.
- “Reasonable foreseeability of harm” is required for FELA negligence, but it concerns foreseeability of general bodily harm from the negligent condition, not the precise mechanism or severity of the injury.
- When a case is submitted on special interrogatories, courts must attempt to reconcile the jury’s answers if a reasonable, consistent reading exists; a verdict should not be rejected as inconsistent unless reconciliation is not fairly possible.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the jury could reasonably infer causation and foreseeability from B&O’s long-known maintenance of a foul, insect-laden stagnant pool, and that the appellate court erred by reweighing those inferences and by refusing to harmonize the special verdict answers.


Gallick v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108 (1963)