Document: 127 S. Ct. 799 (2007) 549 U.S. 158 NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner. v. Timothy SORRELL. No. 05-746. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 10, 2006. Decided January 2007. *802 Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D.C., for L. Perry, Respondent. Laura D. Hunt, Senior General Attorney, Norfolk, VA, James W. Erwin, David Dick Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO, Stephen B. Kinnaird, Eric A. Shumsky, Julie Gurley, Ruthanne M. Deutsch, Sidley Austin Kathleen Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, Redwood Shores, CA, Jerome J. Schlichter, Roger C. Denton, Mary Bogard Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion Court. Sorrell, respondent in this Court, sustained neck and back injuries while working as a trackman petitioner Norfolk Southern Railway Company. He filed suit Missouri state court under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 35 Stat. 65, amended, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, which makes railroads liable to their employees "resulting whole or part from negligence" railroad, § 51. Contributory negligence is not bar recovery FELA, but damages are reduced "in proportion amount attributable to" employee, 53. Sorrell was awarded $1.5 million by jury; objects that jury instructions reflected more lenient causation standard railroad than employee contributory negligence. We conclude FELA should be same both categories negligence, accordingly vacate decision below remand further proceedings. I On November 1, 1999, Indiana, driving dump truck loaded with asphalt used repair crossings. While he between crossings on gravel road alongside tracks, another approached, driven fellow Keith Woodin. The two men provided very different accounts what happened next, somehow Sorrell's veered off tipped its side, injuring him. According testimony, Woodin forced road; according Woodin, drove his into ditch. June 18, 2002, against alleging failed provide him reasonably safe place work caused injuries. responded own accident. purports apply standards approved liability. direct find *803 an contributorily negligent if "directly contributed cause" injury, Mo. Approved Jury Instr., Civ., 32.07(B), p. 519 (6th ed.2002), allowing finding part" id., 24.01.[1] When proposed instruction objected ground it "different" "much exacting" applicable respect railroad's instructions. App. Pet. Cert. 28a-29a. trial overruled objection. 9-10. After returned verdict favor moved new trial, repeating contention were improper because FELA's comparative fault system requires Id., at 20. denied motion. Appeals affirmed, rejecting Norfolk's "the plaintiff defendant." 7a, judgt. order reported 170 S.W.3d (2005) (per curiam). explained procedural rules require where exists, must given exclusion other Ibid.; see Rule Civ. Proc. 70.02(b) (2006). discretionary review, 31a, sought certiorari asking whether courts erred determining [FELA] differs negligence." i. stated only jurisdiction standards, conflicted several decisions insisting single See, e.g., Page Louis Southwestern R. Co., 349 F.2d 820, 823 (C.A.5 1965) ("[T]he better rule one standard"); Ganotis New York Central 342 767, 768-769 (C.A.6 curiam) ("We do believe intended make distinction proximate cause when considered connection carrier's employee's negligence"). In response, did dispute "different standards. . plaintiffs defendant's actions: defendant subject relaxed standard, traditional common-law standard." Brief Opposition 2. granted certiorari. 547 1127, 126 2018, 164 Ed. 2d 778 briefing argument before has attempted expand *804 question presented encompass be, simply particular, contends well. raises substantive objection response. Substantively, argues departed Rogers Pacific 352 500, 77 443, 1 493 (1957). There we stated: "Under test case proofs justify reason conclusion employer played any part, even slightest, producing injury death sought. "[F]or practical purposes inquiry these cases today rarely presents however small, suit." 506, 508, 443. passages have been interpreted mean burden proof less onerous prevailing common law, citing such Consolidated Rail Corporation Gottshall, 512 532, 542-543, 114 2396, 129 427 (1994); Holbrook 414 F.3d 739, 741-742 (C.A.7 2005); Hernandez Trawler Miss Vertie Mae, Inc., 187 432, 436 (C.A.4 1999); Summers 132 599, 606-607 (C.A.10 1997). counters alter established cause, rather rejected flawed unduly stringent version rule, so-called "sole test. most appeals may read does, State Courts disagree, see, Chapman Union 237 Neb. 617, 626-629, 467 N.W.2d 388, 395-396 (1991); Marazzato Burlington Northern 249 Mont. 487, 490-491, 817 P.2d 672, 674 (1991), "there deep conflict authority precisely issue." Reply Petitioner 20, n. 10. grant determine proper decide permissible Act. What more, enlarging presented, taking position enlarged contrary litigated below. courts, argued applies rigorous applied also Thus, object grounds liability instruction, instruction. Now wants argue oppositethat disparity resolved applying agree stick *805 granted. typically reluctant permit parties smuggle additional questions us after See Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Philips Corp., 510 27, 31-34, 425, 396 (1993) Although doubtless correct could consider anterior differ, issue content significant enough prefer address fully presented. would unfair point allow switch gears seek ruling across board. throughout instructions, together, impermissibly created causation. It chose present petition limited differ. That today. II response mounting concern about number severity employees' injuries, Congress 1908 enacted compensation scheme workplace pre-empting tort remedies. Second Cases, 223 53-55, 32 169, 56 327 (1912). Unlike typical workers' scheme, provides relief without regard fault, Section statutory action sounding negligence: "[E]very carrier shall person suffering employed resulting officers, agents, ." concurrent federal 56, although substantively actions governed law. Chesapeake Ohio Co. Stapleton, 279 587, 590, 49 442, 73 861 (1929). Absent express language contrary, elements claim determined reference Urie Thompson, 337 163, 182, 69 1018, 93 1282 (1949). One notable deviation law abolition defenses assumption risk, 54; Tiller Atlantic Coast Line 318 54, 58, 63 444, 87 610 (1943), and, case, At course, operated absolute relief. Keeton, Dobbs, Owen, Prosser Keeton Law Torts pp. 461-462 (5th ed.1984) (hereinafter Keeton); 199, 494 (2001) Dobbs). Under 3 however, does instead diminishes fault: "In all [under FELA], fact guilty recovery, diminished Both same. *806 Respondent 40-41; Tr. Oral Arg. 46-48. As Restatement Torts: "The causal relation conduct harm those others." 465(2), (1964). 456; Dobbs 497 ("The (footnote omitted)). This view 1908. T. Shearman Redfield, Negligence 94, 143-144 ed. 1898) sense give right action"). Missouri's practice apparently unique. claims disparity, identified another.[2] course possible everyone out step except Missouri, no basis concluding meant disparate *807 "although principles necessarily dispositive arising unless they expressly text statute, entitled great weight our analysis." U.S., 544, 2396. Gottshall "cataloged" ways law: abolished servant prohibited employers contracting around Act, risk defense. Western Ayers, 538 135, 145, 123 1210, 155 261 (2003); supra, depart approach, strong evidence Monessen Morgan, 486 330, 337-338, 108 1837, 100 (1988) (holding that, abrogated some explicitly equally well-established doctrine barring prejudgment interest, unpersuaded abrogate sub silentio"). Departing peculiar approach take FELA. explained, "[a]s attack defense, there elements, (1) i.e., care, (2) causation, injury. So far concerned, sameordinary prudencefor Employee Railroad alike. Unless result imperative, is, best, unfortunate used." Page, F.2d, 823. matter, difficult reduce proportion" relevance each party's measured argues, persuasively think, simpler apportionment mandates compares like likeapples apples. Other concur. Fashauer Jersey Transit Operations, 57 1269, 1282-1283 (C.A.3 1995); Caplinger Terminal, 244 Ore. 289, 290-292, 418 34, 35-36 (1966); 822-823; Ganotis, 768-769.[3] thoughtful treatment comes Fifth Circuit "[W]e think Very nature Use terms `in to' `negligence injured worker inescapably calls comparison *808. [I]t obvious work, same." 824. (Third) Apportionment 3, Reporters' Note, 37, Comment (1999) ("[Comparative responsibility administer govern parts lawsuit"). appreciate well "doubt casuistries significance [for] jury," 823, seems idiosyncratic muddies may, jury, already murky waters. contain explicit alteration rule: FELA addressing negligenceuses part," 51, 3covering negligencedoes not, This, contends, evinces intent 3. inclusion section alone departure made little include whole" first place. clear partially negligent. Even understood reflect longer complete statute parties, silent. Finally, urging higher acceptable, invokes remedial purpose history liberal construction. persuaded. indeed benefit employees, abrogation bar, clear. 1210. follow, interpret every uncertainty employees. Rodriguez States, 480 522, 526, 107 1391, 94 533 (1987) ("[I]t frustrates effectuates legislative simplistically assume whatever furthers statute's primarily objective law"). support proposition unusual regime, cannot compensate lack basis. 24.01, *809 Committee's (1978 new), judgment narrow one, need answer today's decision. review model indicates, 2, variety instruct flexibility States deciding how so, so long now joins them standard. maintains improperly contained nonetheless affirm error harmless. credited "direct" revised change. addressed Appeals, leave required case. vacated, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. SOUTER, whom SCALIA ALITO join, concurring. controls recognition defendant-employer's plaintiff-employee's (FELA) suits, share Court's caution remanding instance just relationship turn difference affect litigation focus shared submissions explore matter comprehensively. briefs arguments here did, adequately ours exploration will begin, fair say word holding Despite courts' views contrary,[*]Rogers address, *810 much alter, existing governing degree necessary redressing negligently inflicted harm; merely instructed proceed multiple cognizable causes Prior had prove proximately, indirectly remotely. Lawson, Rights, Remedies, Practice 1740 (1890) ("Natural, proximate, legal results can recovered for, entitling `to recover damage'"); Cooley, (2d 1888) (same). Defendants held standard: day, if, harm. Grand Trunk Ives, 144 408, 429, 12 679, 36 485 (1892). changed but, said once, expressly. 49-50, (1912) (cataloguing departures law). Among targets, categorical dropped replaced regime. 53; Lindsay, 233 42, 49, 34 581, 58 838 (1914). nothing, familiar proximate-cause either half-century enactment Rogers, consistently recognized suits. Tennant Peoria Pekin 321 29, 32, 64 409, 88 520 (1944) (FELA "negligence injury); 195, (1949) (recognizing appropriate suits); Louis-San Francisco Mills, 271 344, 46 520, 70 979 (1926) (judgment owing failure cause). left was. establish submitting causes. 501, "language ma[de] [about liability] dependent upon sole, efficient, injury." notion exclusive *811 undermined Congress's chosen effectively reviving old relief, partial sole one. Recovery possible, said, employer's contribution slight legally True, stipulate clarity served statement go sought." Ibid. But affecting directness distinct occasional multiplicity causations. spoke apportioning among hand causing damage directly traditionally called cause. absence water down requirement evident prior relied. To begin with, "any slightest," excerpt (cited arguing "relaxed" cause) itself cited Coray 335 275, 208 11, There, eight years Black unambiguously 523, 275 ("[P]etitioner defective equipment decedent death"). Second, discussion "safety-appliance statutes" cross-reference citation Atlanta Andrews Bay 338 430, 226, 236 (1949), likewise determines breach `contributory cause' injury," 435, 226. 507, 13, If needed confirm scope held, quotation court's charge supply it, covered show connecting harm, free controversy: "`[I]f you plaintiff. exercise ordinary care safety any[,] any, alleged then, event, defendant, your defendant.'" 505, 9, judge "proximate term art referring showing caused" took respect, causations, above. Whether properly requiring recognizing up *812 instance, resolution remand. decides issue, deal my anything post-Rogers (including own); suggest misreading expressed there. GINSBURG, concurring judgment. holds concur recalled, times warrant submission jury. settled, reexamine cast shadow doubt matter. 543, (1994), acknowledged "a FELA." Decades earlier, Crane Cedar Rapids Iowa City 395 164, 89 1706, 23 176 (1969), "only resulted violation." 166, 1706 (internal marks omitted). referred oft-cited (1957), declared: 443 (emphasis added). turn, drew 524, observed: "Congress imposed extraordinary obligations commanded contributes death, pay damages." These "smuggle into" ante, 804-805 (majority opinion), Today's leaves precedent solidly establishing generally. A few points bear emphasis. First, sometimes eliminated actions. Crane, (A "is causation."); 606 1997) ("During half century, customary analyze However, definitively abandoned Rogers." (citation omitted)); Oglesby Transp. 6 603, 609 (CA9 1993) ("[Our] consistent circuits found [that] `proximate FELA."). accurate, recognize *813 describes "employer entails judgment, least policy based, chain consequences responsible wrongdoing. Palsgraf Long Island 248 N.Y. 339, 352, 162 N.E. 99, 103 (1928) (Andrews, J., dissenting) ("What `proximate' convenience, public policy, rough justice, arbitrarily declines trace series events beyond certain point."). cases, considerations inform calculus. prompted concerns welfare workers. "Cognizant physical dangers railroading maiming thousands workers year," dissatisfied remedies available crafted remedy shifted human overhead doing business employers." 542, 2396 omitted); Wilkerson McCarthy, 336 53, 68, 413, (Douglas, concurring) "was designed put industry cost legs, eyes, arms, lives consumed operations."). "We liberally construed Congress' goal." With motivation center stage get slightest "slightest" sounds exacting "proximate" account statements judicial opinions dispensed seem me reflective pervasive confusion engendered cause." explains: legacy Lord Chancellor Bacon, who time committed sins. means nothing near immediate; taken connotations proximity space since disappeared. word, places entirely wrong emphasis factor mechanical closeness. For `legal perhaps `responsible term." 273 (footnotes Keeton's suggestion substitute "legal cause," clearly held: Whenever responsible.[1] *814 confounding jurists, bewildering jurors. Nothing encourage use "[L]egal concepts `foreseeability' best attorneys consideration judges justices; submitted lay serve confuse jurors distract based merits." Busta Columbus Hospital 276 342, 371, 916 122, 139 (1996). Accord Mitchell Gonzales, 54 Cal. 3d 1041, 1050, Rptr. 913, 819 872, 877 (1991) ("It likely hear misunderstand meaning.").[2] Sound resemble charges Ante, 806, relevant tells jury: fourth element [of action] agents. words, play bringing plaintiff?" 5 Sand, Siffert, Loughlin, Reiss, N. Batterman, Modern InstructionsCivil ¶ 89.02, 89-44 (3d ed.2006). Regarding reads: "To `contributorily negligent,' injuries." 89.03, 89-53. plain expected understand. notes, 808-809, remand, align "resulted plaintiff." 14. contrast, told engaged 15 Its informed responsible, "contributed 11. proposal superior court, phrasing *815 "directly."[3] out, instructional almost certainly negligently, flip side. facts imagine manner indirectly. urged belatedly unsuccessfully, erroneous conform 813-814. reconciled precedent. 809-810. could, unavailing circumstances Again, likelihood * above-described qualifications, NOTES [1] past directed 24.01 persisted until 1978, modified version. ed.1969, Supp.1980). commentary explains excised because, (direct) applicable." (Committee's new)). Cf. Leake 892 S.W.2d 359, 364-365 (Mo.App.1995). hand, remained unchanged. 32.07(B) ed.2002). [2] pattern reveals approaches. Some jurisdictions recommend using formulation respective including third admonition effect. Instr. Civil ¶¶ 89.02-89.03, 89-7, 89-44, 89-53 ed.2006); 4 Fla. Forms Instr. 161.02, 161.47, 161.60 (2006); Nos. 11.07, 11.14, (2005); Ill. 91.02[1], 91.50[1] N.M. Rules Ann., Uniform 13-905, 13-909, 13-915 (2004); Model Utah 14.4, 14.7, 14.8 (1993); Manual District Eighth 7.03, 7 Eleventh Pattern (Civil Cases) 7.1 (2005). ("in part") Mich. Non-Standard 12:53 (Supp.2006). Alabama Virginia formulations containing part. Ala. 17.01, 17.05 ed.1993) (railroad "proximately caused, part"; cause"); Va. 40.01, 40.02 ed.1998) proximately cause"; cause"). York, plaintiff's caus[e]" IB 2:180 Montana general 6.05 (1997) ("[A]n act plays injury"). Kansas codified similar Missouri's, Kan. Instr.3d, 132.01 "results negligence); 132.20 (contributory "contributes injury), cites 132.01, Comment, parties' Merando Atchison, S.F.R. 232 404, 406-409, 656 154, 157-158 (1982). [3] Bunting Sun 434 Pa.Super. 409-411, 643 A.2d 1085, 1088 Hickox Seaboard System 183 Ga.App. 331-332, 358 S.E.2d 889, 891-892 (1987). An exception Texas proposition, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Shelton, 383 842, 844-846 (Civ.App.1964), implicitly disavow. 10 West's Forms: Trial Appellate 23.34, 27 2000) ("Did [plaintiff railroad] occurrence question?"). [*] Recently, smuggled concept 2005) (concluding suing significantly lighter case" `employer injury'" (quoting 443)); "definitively abandoned" 606-609 (C.A.9 espoused opposite view. 674-675 (Rogers only, leaving proving [death]" (alteration original)); Gardner CSX Transp., 201 W.Va. 490, 498 473, 483 ("[T]o prevail [FELA], acted injury"); Snipes Chicago 484 162, (Iowa 1992) ("Recovery accident"); 627, ("To employer's`negligence SOUTER's (1969). Legal Cause: Cause-in-Fact Scope Consequences, Vand. L.Rev. 941, 987 inadequacy vagueness notorious."); Cork, Better Orientation Instructions, Mercer 53-54 (2002) (criticizing Georgia's incomprehensible); Steele Thornburg, Instructions: Persistent Failure Communicate, 67 N.C.L.Rev. (demonstrating juror instructions). was, nevertheless, imperfect. whole' place." 808.

Category: 7