## Facts

- A railroad employee lived about seventy miles from his reporting location and ordinarily drove the highway to work.
- On December 22, 1969, the employer’s yard clerk telephoned the employee early in the morning and instructed him to report for duty in less than two hours.
- Weather and road conditions along the route were alleged to be blizzard or near-blizzard conditions, with poor visibility and hazardous travel.
- While driving to comply with the order, the employee attempted to pass another vehicle in limited visibility and collided with an oncoming car.
- The collision killed the other car’s driver, passenger, and infant, and injured a minor passenger.
- The minor, through guardians, sued the employer and the employee’s estate for wrongful death and personal injuries, alleging the employer was negligent in ordering the employee to report under the conditions and time constraints.
- Issues relating to the employee’s negligence were resolved before submission to the jury; the case went to the jury primarily on the employer’s negligence and causation.
- The jury found for the minor plaintiff against the employer; the trial court denied the employer’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether ordering an employee to travel a long distance on short notice during severe winter conditions could constitute negligence toward foreseeable highway users.
2. Whether the employer’s conduct could be found a proximate cause of the collision, or whether the employee’s driving was an intervening, superseding cause as a matter of law.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict and the denial of post-verdict relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The evidence permitted the jury to find the employer breached a duty of reasonable care by directing the employee to report promptly despite known or knowable hazardous conditions.
- Proximate cause and superseding cause were properly submitted to the jury; the employee’s conduct could be found a foreseeable consequence of the employer’s directive rather than an independent, superseding cause.
- The trial court did not err in denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Liability in negligence extends to harms that are reasonably foreseeable results of the defendant’s conduct; defendants are not responsible for merely possible or extraordinary consequences.
- An employer’s operational decision that foreseeably induces an employee to travel in dangerous conditions on short notice can create an unreasonable risk of harm to third parties.
- Intervening negligent acts supersede an earlier actor’s negligence only when the intervening act is unforeseeable and not a normal consequence of the risk created.
- Questions of negligence, foreseeability, proximate cause, and superseding cause are generally for the jury when reasonable minds could differ and the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury finding that an employer could be liable for injuries to third parties when it required an employee to drive a substantial distance on short notice during severe storm conditions, because the resulting collision could be found within the foreseeable scope of risk and not cut off by a superseding cause.


Moum v. Maercklein, 201 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1972)