Opinion ID: 506630
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Instruction Misstating FELA.

Text: 8 As noted in footnote 2, supra, the FELA imposes liability for injury resulting in whole or in part from an employer's negligence. The instruction submitted by the court, however, stated that the plaintiff must prove that his injury was the result of some negligence on the part of the defendant. 9 Naylor argues that by omitting the phrase in whole or in part, the court required the jury to believe that liability could only be found if the Railway's negligence was the only factor that caused the heart attack. 10 Even assuming, arguendo, that the instruction as given misstated the law, [t]he question, once a misstatement has been made, is whether the error was so egregious, considering the instructions as a whole, as to require the verdict to be set aside. Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 756 F.2d 1556, 1560 (Fed.Cir.1985) (emphasis added). Elsewhere in the instructions, the in whole or in part language in the FELA is quoted directly, and at another point the amount of negligence needed for a defendant to be liable is specifically addressed. 3 We conclude, therefore, that the instructions as a whole stated the law correctly, and any error in the instructions did not rise to the level necessary to set the verdict aside. 11