RAILROAD/FELA

There are several types of claims which are generally termed "railroad injuries". Most people are aware of collisions which occur between vehicles and trains at railroad crossings. There are referred to as "grade crossing accidents". In addition, pedestrians can often be injured or killed by a passing train. In passenger train services, such as AMTRAK, there are many types of injuries caused by the negligence of the railroad.

One of the most active areas of railroad litigation concerns railroad workers who are injured performing their jobs. Railroad workers are not covered by State Workers' Compensation laws, but are instead protected by a federal law known as the Federal Employer's Liability Act, or FELA.

As these railroad laws differ dramatically from the usual personal injury case, it is vital that you seek an attorney who has experience handling cases against the railroads. We have won multi-million dollar judgments in railroad cases and have experience in these matters in courts all over the southeastern United States. If you have be injured by a train, or by the negligence of a railroad, call us today. If you would like additional information about how we can help you, click here.

---

As a legal introduction to some of the special aspects of the railroad laws which protect injured workers, the following paragraphs present a brief overview of the issues which most often arise for injured railroad employees.

The basic section of the FELA, 45 U.S.C. 51, provides:

Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States...shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce...for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves or other equipment.

The first fundamental principle which controls the disposition of all issues under the FELA concerns the quantum of proof necessary for the submission of the issues in the case to the jury. Cases arising under the FELA will support a jury verdict if there is evidence "of any probative value" showing that some negligence of the railroad caused, in any part, the injuries for which damages are being sought. Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645 (1946).

The United States Supreme Court in the seminal case of Rogers v. Missouri-Pacific Railroad Co. 352 U.S. 500 (1957), held that a verdict may be sustained if a conclusion can be reached with reason from the evidence that the railroad employer's negligence "played any part, even the slightest, in producing" the injuries for which damages are sought. It makes no difference, morever, if the evidence with support other or contrary conclusions denying liability.

As the Rogers court noted, the FELA:

"was enacted because Congress was dissatisfied with the common law duty of the master to his servant. The statute supplants that duty with the far more drastic duty of paying damages for injury or death at work do in whole or in part to the employers negligence." Further, "the FELA was designed to put on the railroad industry some of the costs for legs, eyes, arms and lives which it consumed in its operation" Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53, 68 (1949).

Federal courts have interpreted the Rogers decision as holding that a Plaintiff's burden of proof with regard to causation is significantly less in an action brought pursuant to the FELA than it is in a standard negligence action. See, Hausrath v. New York Central Ry., 401 F2d 634 (6th Cir. 1968); Nivens v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry., 425 F.2d 1114 (5th Cir. 1970); Heater v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry., 497 F2d 1243 (7th Cir. 1974) cert. den. 419 U.S. 1013 (1974); Caillouette v. Baltimore and Ohio Ry., 705 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1982). Moreover, in cases brought pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act, courts have also taken an expansive view of the concept of forseeability of harm, and have traditionally not permitted this concept to negate negligence under the Act. In Gallick v. Baltimore and Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 115, 120-121 (1963), for example, the United States Supreme Court states:

"It is widely held that for a defendant to be liable for consequential damages he need not foresee the particular consquences of his negligent acts: assuming the existence of a threshold tort against the person, then whatever damages flow from it are recoverable...and we have no doubt that under a statute where the tortfeaser is liable for death or injuries in producing [sic] which its 'negligence played any part, even the slightest'...Such a tortfeaser must compensate his victim for even improbable or unexpectedly severe consequences of his wrongful act."

See also Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U.S. 459 (1947); Harrison v. Missouri-Pacific R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 248 (1963); McBride v. Toledo Terminal Ry. Co., 554 U.S. 517 (1957); Ringhiser v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co., 354 U.S. 901 (1957).

Thus, the controlling test for a jury case is whether there is evidence of any probative value that some negligence of the railroad "played any part, even the slightest, in producing" the injuries for which damages are sought. Gallick v. Baltimore and Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 115, 120-121 (1963)

Still another important principle has been applied by the United States Supreme Court in cases arising under the Act. The employer railroad has a continuing duty at all times and at all places of employment to exercise due care to furnish its employee with a reasonable safe place to work and reasonably safe equipment in performing the job or operation. That duty becomes more imperative as the risk increases. Patton v. Texas and Pacific Ry. Co., 179 U.S. 568 (1901); Bailey v. Central Vermont Railroad Co. 319 U.S. 350 (1943); Blair v. Balitmore and Ohio R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 600 (1945); and Wilkerson v. McCarthy 336 U.S. 53 (1949).

Of particular importance is the Federal Rule of Unitary Negligence which must be applied in determining whether the railroad has fulfilled its duties imposed upon it under the law. In determining whether those duties have been fulfilled and whether or not the railroad was negligent, the jury may view the railroad's conduct as a whole and may consider all of the facts and circumstances as a whole. Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hadley, 246 U.S. 330 (1918); Bailey v. Central Vermont Railroad Co., 319 U.S. 350 (1943); Blair v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 323 U.S. 600 (1945); and Arnold v. Panhandle and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 353 U.S. 360 (1957). This was perhaps best expressed by Justice Holmes in the case of Union Pacific Railroad Co., 246 U.S. 332 (1918):

"On the question of its negligence the defendant undertook to split up the charge into items mentioned in the declaration as constituent elements and to ask a ruling as to each. But the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts, and the court was justified in leaving the general question to the jury if it thought that the defendant should not be allowed to take the bundle apart and break the sticks separately, and if the defendant's conduct viewed as a whole warranted a finding of neglect. Upon that point there can be no question."

The same principle has been consistently applied by the United States Supreme Court. In Blair, 323 U.S. 604 (1945), the Court noted:

"The duty of the employer 'becomes more imperative as the risk increases.' Bailey, 350, 352, 353 U.S. 350 (1943). See also Tiller v. Atlantic C.L.R. Co., 318 U.S. 54, 67. The negligence of the employer may be determined by viewing its conduct as a whole. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 246 U.S. 330, 332, 333. And especially is this true in a case such as this, where the several elements from which negligence might be inferred are so closely interwoven as to form a single pattern, and where each imparts character to the others."

In this instant case, CSX Transportation was negligenct for allowing a wrench to be left on the locomotive steps. CSX admits that the prior crew had the responsibility to inspect for such changes. Further, no reasonable jury could disagree that the negligence of the railroad caused, in whole or in part, even the slightest, the injuries to Mr. Holly. Therefore, negligence and causation under the FELA are established as a matter of law.

Under the FELA there is no assumption of the risk defense, 45 U.S.C., 54. As the Supreme Court noted in Tiller, 318 U.S. 54 (1943),

"Every vestige of the doctrine of assumption of risk was obliterated from the law by the 1939 amendment, and Congress, by abolishing the defense of assumption of risk in the statute, did not mean to leave open the identical defense for the master by changing its name to non-negligence."

In addition, the FELA adopts a pure comparative fault approach. 45 U.S.C., 53 provides in pertinent part:

"The fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee: provided, that no such employee who may be injured or killed shall be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety or employees contributed to the injury or death of such employee."

It has not always been easy for courts to differentiate between contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Under the FELA however, courts have provided some guidance. As the Ninth Circuite recognized in Taylor v. Burlington Northern Ry. Co., 787 F.2d 1309, 1316 (9th Cir. 1986):

"The employee who enters the work place for a routine assignment in compliance with the orders and directions of his employer or its supervising agents, who by such entry incurs risks not extraordinary in scope, is not contributorily negligent, but rather is engaging in an assumption of risk."

These legal rules which govern employee injuries on the railroad are well known to the lawyers at Rutter Mills. If you are injured by the negligence of a railroad, call us or click here today. For information regarding the states of Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania visit Train Accident Attorneys:Railroad Crossing Accident: Railroad Derailment: Mark Baran and Hershel Ber - Attorneys at Law Virginia Port Authority

Dan Bramble was an engineer operating a train consist of five locomotives and 80 cars. All of the engines and 17 cars derailed at about 30 mph because of an un-repaired signal system and an improperly thrown switch. This accident tore the rotator cuff in Dan's shoulder and injured his bicep. Dan's doctors also diagnosed him with significant post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).