Court Opinion

ID: 9713037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:05:37.114706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:15.944583
License: Public Domain

WAHL, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion correctly determines the evidentia-ry issue and accurately sets out the law that has been developed by the courts in cases arising under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) but gets off the train *654before reaching the destination indicated on the ticket. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that if there are probative facts which would support a verdict for the injured employee, the issue of the railroad’s liability is to be decided exclusively by the jury. Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 504, 77 S.Ct. 443, 447,1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957), reh’g denied, 353 U.S. 943, 77 S.Ct. 808, 1 L.Ed.2d 764 (1957). The policies of Congress, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, are to promote employee recovery and to broaden the jury’s role. The question of the railroad’s negligence is a close one, but our role in reviewing the trial court’s order of a directed verdict is to “accept as true all of the evidence favorable to the adverse party and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the evidence.” Walton v. Jones, 286 N.W.2d 710, 714 (Minn.1979). Considering the case in this light, I conclude that the railroad may have been negligent by not providing safety straps, by not providing better cleaning facilities, and by not taking more steps to ensure that the glasses were correctly adjusted and that its employees knew how to adjust them. There was sufficient evidence for reasonable persons to disagree. The fact that reasonable minds on this court reach different conclusions indicates to me that there was at least the scintilla of evidence required by the cases to take the issue of employer negligence to the jury. Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 372 U.S. 108, 83 S.Ct. 659, 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963); Webb v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 352 U.S. 512, 77 S.Ct. 451, 1 L.Ed.2d 503 (1957); Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. I would reverse and remand the case for trial.