## Facts

- John Gyerman, an experienced longshoreman employed by a stevedoring company, was assigned to work in a warehouse operated by United States Lines Company.
- The warehouse stored 100-pound burlap sacks of fishmeal stacked on wooden pallets after unloading from a vessel; fishmeal sacks tend to tear and spill, making stable stacking important.
- Customary safe practice was to limit height and “bulkhead” sacks in a staggered pattern to reduce instability.
- Gyerman observed unusually unstable stacks (overloaded pallets and non-bulkheaded arrangement) and claimed he complained to the warehouse’s chief marine clerk, who allegedly told him to continue working as best he could; the clerk denied this conversation.
- Gyerman did not report the condition to his own employer’s supervisor and did not use a collective-bargaining grievance process allowing workers, in good faith, to refuse immediately dangerous work pending a safety determination.
- Over several days, sacks fell without injury; on the fourth day, about twelve sacks fell at once, one striking Gyerman and injuring his back and legs.
- Gyerman sued United States Lines for negligence in stacking and maintaining the cargo.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant, asserting contributory negligence, bears the burden to prove all elements of that defense, including that plaintiff’s conduct was a proximate cause of the injury.
2. Whether evidence supported a finding that Gyerman’s continued work and failure to report the condition to his employer or invoke contractual procedures actually contributed to the accident.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the defendant and remanded.
- The court held contributory negligence is an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the burden of proving all elements, including causation, unless those elements can be inferred from plaintiff’s evidence.
- The court concluded the record did not support the trial court’s finding that Gyerman’s failure to complain to his employer or stop work was a contributing cause of his injuries.
- The case was remanded for a new trial limited to the issue of contributory negligence under the proper burden and causation standard.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence requires both (a) plaintiff conduct below the standard of reasonable self-protection and (b) a legally contributing causal connection between that conduct and the injury.
- The defendant bears the burden of proving contributory negligence, including proximate cause, unless the necessary elements can be inferred from plaintiff’s evidence without speculation.
- A worker’s failure to refuse dangerous work is not automatically unreasonable; the standard of self-care is evaluated in the circumstances, including practical constraints on abandoning assigned tasks.
- Evidence of workplace custom or contractual safety procedures is relevant to whether plaintiff acted reasonably but is not conclusive of the legal standard and does not satisfy the causation element.
- Causation may not be presumed from unsafe conduct; absent proof that a report or work stoppage would likely have produced timely corrective action, contributory negligence is not established.

## Conclusion

Because the defendant did not show that Gyerman’s alleged omissions would probably have led to remedial steps preventing the falling sacks, the finding of contributory negligence lacked evidentiary support; the case was remanded for a new trial confined to that defense with causation treated as an element the defendant must prove.


Gyerman v. United States Lines Co., 7 Cal. 3d 488 (Cal. 1972)