Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0556-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15139
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed December 16, 2016
    
      Charles D. Naylor, Esquire, The Law Offices of Charles Naylor, San Pedro, CA, Jeffrey Ragan Seely, Attorney, Gordon, Elias & Seely, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Melissa S. Greenidge, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Law Department, Roseville, CA,- Reha Kamas, General Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appel-lee
    Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) was enacted “to secure jury determinations in a larger proportion of cases than would be true of ordinary common law actions.” Mendoza v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 733 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1984). Only “ ‘slight’ or ‘minimal’ evidence is needed to raise a jury question of negligence under FELA.” Id. at 632 (citations omitted). Smith identifies a number of disputed factual issues: Did Union Pacific salt the parking lot on January 15, 2009? Would snow spikes have been available to Smith? Would Smith’s injuries have been prevented had he been wearing snow spikes? On this record, it is “not outside the possibility of reason” that Union Pacific was negligent. Id at 633. Because the question of negligence should be decided by a jury, S. Pac. Co. v. Guthrie, 180 F.2d 295, 300 (9th Cir. 1949), summary judgment was not appropriate.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.