Opinion ID: 2551157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Assumption of Risk Defense is Prohibited

Text: In 1906, Congress enacted FELA, a broad remedial framework addressing recovery for injured railroad workers. [12] See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 562, 107 S.Ct. 1410, 1414, 94 L.Ed.2d 563, 571 (1987) (explaining that Congress intended FELA to provide a remedial framework for railroad employees and to eliminate several common law defenses to tort liability); cf. Green v. River Terminal Ry. Co., 763 F.2d 805, 806 (6th Cir.1985) (noting that courts should liberally construe the provisions of FELA in favor of injured railroad employees in light of the remedial objective of the statute). At the time of passage of FELA, the doctrine of assumption of risk was applied generally ... because of acceptance of the theory that the employee's compensation was based upon the added risk to his position and that he could quit when he pleased. Tiller, ex. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 318 U.S. 54, 61, 63 S.Ct. 444, 448, 87 L.Ed. 610, 614 (1943). The doctrine, however, was never practically distinct from contributory negligence and so the overlap became the subject of endless litigation. Tiller, 318 U.S. at 63, 63 S.Ct. at 449, 87 L.Ed. at 615. In 1939, Congress abrogated the assumption of risk defense from cases brought pursuant to FELA. Petitioner extracted her proposed jury instruction for use at trial from the language of the statute: § 54. Assumption of risks of employment In any action brought against any common carrier under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this chapter to recover damages for injuries to, or the death of, any of its employees, such employee shall not be held to have assumed the risks of his employment in any case where such injury or death resulted in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier; and no employee shall be held to have assumed the risks of his employment in any case where the violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to the injury or death of such employee. 45 U.S.C. § 54 (emphasis added); see Tiller, 318 U.S. at 58, 63 S.Ct. at 446, 87 L.Ed. at 612 (explaining that Congress intended for 45 U.S.C. § 54 to abolish every vestige of the assumption of risk defense from all claims arising under FELA). Congress abolished the doctrine of assumption of risk in the FELA cases because the doctrine failed to acknowledge that employers, not employees, controlled working conditions. See Tiller, 318 U.S. at 65, 63 S.Ct. at 450, 87 L.Ed. at 617 (noting the Senate Judiciary Committee's belief that the doctrine of assumption of risk was unsuited for contemporaneous economic activities). Assumption of risk means, [a]t common law an employee's voluntary, knowledgeable acceptance of a dangerous condition that is necessary for him to perform his duties.... Taylor, 787 F.2d at 1316 ( citing PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS § 68, 480-81 (W.P. Keeton 5th ed.1984)). The effect of the amendment to FELA is that a statutory employer may no longer escape liability for deviating from the duty of care owed to employees by urging that the employee was aware of the dangers that might befall him or her but undertook employment in spite of those dangers in exchange for compensation. An employee's assumption of the risk of the employment environment is no longer presumptively implied from the terms of an employment contract and the defense may not be used to bar an employee's recovery under the Act. FELA is a comparative negligence statute, thus, a claimant's recovery may only be reduced upon a showing of contributory negligence. [13] 45 U.S.C. § 53. Contributory negligence ... is not a complete bar to a plaintiff's recovery but, rather, operates to diminish the recovery in proportion to the parties' comparative fault. Butynski v. Springfield Terminal Ry., 592 F.3d 272, 276 (1st Cir.2010) (citation omitted). Contributory negligence... is a careless act or omission on the plaintiff's part tending to add new dangers to conditions that the employer negligently created or permitted to exist. Taylor, 787 F.2d at 1316 (citing PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS § 65, 451-52). Therefore, if the defendant employer in a FELA case alleges sufficient evidence that the plaintiff employee engaged in conduct that caused an undue risk of harm to himself or herself, then the jury should be instructed to apportion a percentage of fault to the employee so that any awarded damages can then be appropriately reduced. The argument that plaintiff cannot recover because of [the] deceased's contributory negligence is wholly without merit. Contributory negligence, while it may diminish the amount of recovery, is not a [complete] defense to a cause of action bottomed on the Federal Employers' Liability Act, §§ 3, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 53. Ramsouer v. Midland Valley R. Co., 135 F.2d 101, 107 (8th Cir.1943). Contributory negligence does not bar recovery in FELA cases, it reduces the amount of the damage award. Despite the explicit abolition of the doctrine of assumption of risk from the resolution of claims brought pursuant to FELA, the practical complications of its similarity to contributory negligence, which is a permitted defense, persist. [W]hen a statute exonerates a servant from [assumption of the risk], if at the same time it leaves the defense of contributory negligence still open to the master, then, unless great care be taken, the servant's rights will be sacrificed by simply charging him with assumption of risk under another name. Koshorek v. Pa. R.R. Co., 318 F.2d 364, 369 (3d Cir.1963) (citation omitted). Because a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the employee will reduce his or her damages, while a finding of assumption of risk would bar recovery, courts [and juries] have the delicate job of separating out evidence on one theory from evidence on the other. Fashauer, 57 F.3d at 1274.