Opinion ID: 2982480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FELA and LIA

Text: “[A]n avowed departure from the rules of the common law, [FELA] was a response to the special needs of railroad workers who are daily exposed to the risks inherent in railroad work.” Sinkler v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 356 U.S. 326, 329 (1958) (citation omitted). FELA provides that: Every common carrier by railroad . . . shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier . . . for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any 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, . . . or other equipment. 45 U.S.C. § 51 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court recently reiterated FELA’s lessened negligence and causation standard: Under [FELA] the test of a jury case is simply whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury . . . for which damages are sought. CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630, 2636 (2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted, emphasis added). So, too, has this court. See Szekeres v. CSX Transp., Inc. (Szekeres II), 731 F.3d 592, 597 (6th Cir. 2013) (“McBride simply reaffirmed Rogers [v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506 (1957),] and the causation standard that has governed FELA cases for over 50 years.”); see also Szekeres I, 617 F.3d 424, 429 (6th Cir. 2010); Richards v. Consol. Rail Corp., 330 F.3d 428, 437 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Rogers [, 352 U.S. at 506,] makes clear that -4- No. 13-6464 Edwards v. CSX Transportation, Inc. where the evidence allows more than one outcome on the issue of causation, the issue should be decided by a jury, not a judge”). To supplement FELA and facilitate employee recovery, Congress enacted the LIA (formerly the Boiler Inspection Act), which imposes an absolute duty on railroad carriers to ensure their locomotives are properly maintained and safe to operate. LIA claims are actionable under the FELA, Szekeres I, 617 F.3d at 427; that is, LIA does not confer a right of action on injured employees, but rather, has been construed as a supplement to FELA such that proof of a violation under LIA establishes negligence as a matter of law under FELA, Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 188 (1949). The LIA provides in pertinent part: A railroad carrier may use or allow to be used a locomotive . . . on its railroad line only when the locomotive . . . and its parts and appurtenances – (1) are in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury; (2) have been inspected as required under this chapter and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under this chapter; and (3) can withstand every test prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. § 20701. A rail carrier can violate the LIA either by breaching the broad duty to keep all parts and appurtenances of its locomotives in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury, or by failing to comply with the regulations issued by the Federal Railroad Administration and promulgated under the LIA. See 65 Am. Jur. 2d Railroads § 130, Federal regulation – Locomotive Inspection Act. An employee’s contributory negligence does not bar his recovery.3 3 See Szekeres, 617 F.3d at 427; Mickler v. Nimishillen & Tuscarawas Ry. Co., 13 F.3d 184, 188 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 188-89 (1949)). -5- No. 13-6464 Edwards v. CSX Transportation, Inc.