Opinion ID: 167994
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duty and Breach of Duty

Text: The district court instructed the jury that it had to find that Union Pacific breached at least one of the following duties: the provision of (1) reasonably safe conditions to work; (2) adequate assistance while working; (3) adequate tools and equipment; and (4) reasonably safe methods for working. App. vol. II, at 215 (Jury Instruction no. 13). Keeping in mind that because of FELA’s comparative negligence provision, see Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532, 542-43 (1994), an employer’s negligence need not have been the sole cause of injury, our review of the record shows that M r. Chaffin presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude, at least, that Union Pacific (1) failed to provide reasonably safe working conditions and (2) also failed to provide him with adequate assistance while cleaning the switches. See Rogers v. M o. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 513 (1957) (explaining that FELA requires a case be submitted to a jury when “the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for w hich damages are sought”). 15 W ith respect to breaching the duty to provide M r. Chaffin with adequate assistance, the evidence shows that M r. Forsythe failed to notify BN SF maintenance crews that M r. Chaffin’s train w as arriving, and thus they were unable to assist M r. Chaffin in clearing the ice and snow from the switches. Additionally, M r. Forsythe had told M r. Chaffin that he would send a van to transport M r. Chaffin around the train yard, or to take him somew here to w arm himself. M r. Chaffin, in reliance on this representation, proceeded down the track farther away from the train depot where he could have sought shelter from the elements when his foot began to numb. Regarding Union Pacific’s breach of the duty to provide reasonably safe working conditions, we acknowledge that the railroad cannot control weather conditions and that its employees are expected to work in adverse weather. However, M r. Chaffin identified numerous exacerbating factors that would allow a jury to infer that Union Pacific breached its duty to provide reasonably safe working conditions: the switches were not cleared of ice and snow by a maintenance crew as a result of M r. Forsythe’s failure to notify BNSF that M r. Chaffin’s train had arrived; M r. Forsythe changed M r. Chaffin’s assignment to a more lengthy, complicated one that involved cleaning multiple switches, despite the weather conditions; and M r. Forsythe did not deliver on his promise to quickly provide a van to transport M r. Chaffin between the switches. A reasonable jury 16 could have inferred that M r. Forsythe knew or should have known that having a BNSF maintenance crew clean the switches, or at least providing a warm mode of transportation for M r. Chaffin while he cleaned them, were necessary to ensuring that M r. Chaffin worked in reasonably safe conditions.