Court Opinion

ID: 9482798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:00:53.9209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:12.728532
License: Public Domain

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority, and with its reasoning to the extent that the plain meaning of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4), precludes a finding of negligence per se and a barring of contributory negligence in a FELA action. But the majority reaches two unnecessary conclusions: it contracts the scope of FELA liability by limiting the applicability of the negligence per se doctrine to violations of statutes “specific to the railroad industry”; and, it expands the scope of OSHA to allow OSHA standards to be admitted as evidence of negligence in a FELA action. Because I believe these results are unwarranted under current law and under the plain meaning of OSHA, I write separately.
I.
FELA creates a cause of action for railway employees who have been killed or injured “by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to [] negligence.” 45 U.S.C. § 51. Liability is based on common law negligence principles. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Stapleton, 279 U.S. 587, 591, 49 S.Ct. 442, 443, 73 L.Ed. 861 (1929). The employer’s duties arise either from the general, common law duty of care or a specific, statutory duty. When they arise from statute, common law principles may treat the violation of that duty as negligence per se. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 286 (1965). Negligence per se in a FELA action simply means that the violation of a statutory duty imposes absolute liability on the employer and he is not excused by any showing of care. O’Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & E. Co., 338 U.S. 384, 391, 70 S.Ct. 200, 204, 94 L.Ed. 187 (1949).
In Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426, 78 S.Ct. 394, 2 L.Ed.2d 382 (1958), Kernan was killed because American Dredging violated a navigation regulation. The Supreme Court held that the violation constituted negligence per se under FELA § 51. Traditionally, common law limited the negligence per se doctrine to injuries that the statute was designed to prevent. See Restatement § 286, Comment on Clause (c). The Court, however, rejected this and concluded “the basis of liability is a violation of statutory duty without regard to whether the injury flowing from the violation was the injury the statute sought to guard against.” 78 S.Ct. at 401.
Congress promulgated FELA to provide liberal recovery for injured workers. Hence, if restrictive common law principles undermine this purpose they are not applied. See id. at 398. See also 45 U.S.C. §§ 53, 54 (limiting the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence). Because FELA is a broad remedial statute, Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 508-10, 77 S.Ct. 443, 449-50, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957), its statutory scheme ensures that a common carrier’s duties include, and extend, the spectrum of common law standard of recovery. In this context, the majority seeks to limit the applicability of the negligence per se doctrine to FELA liability to violations of statutes specific to the industry.
The majority assumes that, in deciding whether or not to apply the negligence per se doctrine, the nature of the act is a determinative factor. Nothing in FELA mandates this consideration. To the contrary, Congress intended FELA to interact with statutes not specific to the railroad industry. So for example, FELA § 53 and § 54 provide respectively that contributory *1166negligence and assumption of the risk shall not apply where the employer violated “any statute enacted for the safety of employees.”1 (Emphasis added.) Also, the Supreme Court has said that “the nature of the Acts violated is not a controlling consideration.” Kernan, 78 S.Ct. at 401. What is controlling is the violation of a statutory obligation and a causally connected injury. Id. at 398. The basis for the majority’s limitation cannot be found in FELA or Keman.
The fallacy of its reasoning is apparent when we consider an odd result it produces. Suppose an employee is injured because an employer violates a statute designed for safety but not directed at the industry (for example, OSHA). In a common law action, if the employee can show that his injury was one the statute was designed to prevent, then negligence per se will apply. Yet in a FELA action, he does not enjoy the same because the statute was not “specific to the railroad industry.” The majority thus construes FELA in a manner that common law would provide a more liberal standard of recovery for violations of statutory duties than FELA. But see id. at 401 (equity considerations have moved courts to “plainly reject[] many of the refined distinctions necessary in common-law tort doctrine”); 45 U.S.C. §§ 53, 54.
Though the majority does not articulate so much as it assumes, the only rationale for the limitation it places seems to be based on the belief that FELA protects against certain types of “injuries” and ensures a certain type of “safety.” See Majority at 1163-1164. Therefore the ordinary “slip and fall” cases cannot be considered in the same class as those resulting from violations of industry directed statutes. The majority implies that FELA stands in a special relationship with certain statutes such as the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., and the Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 23 et seq., the violations of which lead to negligence per se. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 189, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034, 93 L.Ed. 1282 (1949).
In Keman the employer argued similarly. It contended that these statutes stand in a special relationship with FELA by virtue of FELA § 54, which refers to “any statute enacted for the safety of employees.” Thus, only violations of these statutes, it contended, impose negligence per se. The Court rejected this argument:
First, § [54] relates entirely to the defense of assumption of risk, abolishing this defense where the injury was caused by the employer’s negligence or by “violation ... of any statute enacted for the safety of employees....” It is § [51] of the FELA which creates the cause of action and this section, on its face, is barren of any suggestion that injuries caused by violation of any statute are to be treated specially....
Second, if is argued that the Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts are special safety statutes and thus may easily be assimilated to the FELA under general common-law principles. But there is no magic in the word “safety. ”
78 S.Ct. at 400 (first emphasis in original and second emphasis added). Likewise there is no magic in the word “injury.” Under the majority’s reasoning, an employee may establish negligence per se if she broke her ankle because her employer violated the Safety Appliance Act, but she may not so establish if she broke the same ankle because her employer violated a statute not directed at the industry but designed for employee safety.
Whether to apply the negligence per se doctrine is not confined by some notion that FELA protects against certain types of “injuries” and ensures a certain type of “safety.” Liability springs from a breach of a duty:
[T]he theory of the FELA is that where the employers’ conduct falls short of the *1167high standard required of him by this Act, and his fault, in whole or in part, causes injury, liability ensues. And this result follows whether the fault is a violation of a statutory duty or the more general duty of acting with care, for the employer owes the employee, as much as the duty of acting with care, the duty of complying with his statutory obligations.
Id. at 398. By its nature liability based on a breach of a general, common law duty cannot be negligence per se since the trier of fact must first determine what the standard of conduct, duty, is. The violation of a statutory duty stands on a different ground; the statute defines the duty. Absolute liability may ensue upon a finding of any statutory violation.
In Pratico v. Portland Terminal Co., 783 F.2d 255 (1st Cir.1985), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded, “FELA presents no obstacle to the application of the negligence per se doctrine to OSHA violations.” Id. at 264 (see Part III at pp. 262-64) (emphasis added). I agree.2 By applying negligence per se, we do not drastically enlarge liability. Without it, the trier of fact may still find liability. Negligence per se simply “ups the ante” whenever legislatures have spelled out specific, statutory obligations.
The majority suggests, “Imposing negligence per se for all statutory violations would be quite draconian.” Majority at 1163 n. 7. But harsh too is the inevitable consumption of lives, limbs, and livelihoods by the railway industry. See Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53, 68, 69 S.Ct. 413, 420, 93 L.Ed. 497 (1949) (Douglas concurring). These human costs do not distinguish between the nature of statutory violations. Employment in the railway industry remains perilous; we expect employers to maintain the highest standard of care. This includes observing statutory standards of care specific to the industry as well as other statutory obligations with equal diligence.
I do not suggest that every violation of a statutory duty gives rise to negligence per se under FELA. The logical reach of such a proposition may lead to absurd results. I suggest only that the majority’s suggested bright-line demarcation is unnecessary to decide this appeal and is unwarranted under current law:
Congress saw fit to enact a statute of the most general terms, thus leaving in large measure to the courts the duty of fashioning remedies for injured employees in a manner analogous to the development of tort remedies at common law. But it is clear that the general congressional intent was to provide liberal recovery for injured workers, and it is also clear that Congress intended the creation of no static remedy, but one which would be developed and enlarged to meet changing conditions and changing concepts of industry’s duty toward its workers.
Kernan, 78 S.Ct. at 398 (citations omitted). The development of FELA, like common law principles, should proceed on a case by case, statute by statute basis to reflect changing conditions and values. The majority did not need to restrict FELA liability in the manner that it did for the plain language of OSHA § 653(b)(4) precludes a finding of negligence per se in a FELA action. Albrecht v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 808 F.2d 329, 333 (4th Cir.1987) (“negligence per se rule is inconsistent with [OSHA] § 653(b)(4)”). In overjustifying what is statutorily clear, the majority may have unnecessarily limited the scope of FELA liability and its potential for future development. Thus I divorce myself from any suggestion that the applicability of the negligence per se doctrine is limited to violations of statutes specific to the industry.
II.
I also disagree with the majority’s assertion that OSHA violations may be admitted into evidence to show that an employer acted negligently. OSHA § 653(b)(4) precludes such use of OSHA in a FELA action. It provides that OSHA shall not “in any manner affect any ... common law or stat*1168utory rights, duties, or liabilities.” (Emphasis added.) The majority relies on the plain meaning of § 653(b)(4) to conclude: Even if “imposing negligence per se for an OSHA violation would not ‘enlarge’ employers’ liability ... we are hard pressed to say that [such a result] would not ‘affect’ liability.” Majority at 1162. The plain meaning rule of statutory construction, once applied, cannot be abandoned when it is convenient to do so. See Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 469, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 2574, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (Kennedy concurring). The same reasoning should preclude the introduction of OSHA standards as evidence.
It is axiomatic that all evidence of negligence is designed to affect the liability calculus and a defendant’s duty to plaintiff. See Restatement § 288, Comment on subsection (2). If such introduction results in a finding of negligence, it changes the standard of employer liability. If, however, it would not affect the negligence calculus, why would one even seek to introduce it in the first place? Indeed, the only reason why is to show a breach of an OSHA duty and thereby imply a common law duty and breach. See id. (“The fact that such [statutory] precautions have been prescribed for another purpose may be a relevant fact for the consideration of the triers of fact, as indicating that a reasonable man would have taken the same precautions in the particular case.”). To the extent the introduction of statutory standards affects the inferences drawn by the trier, see Majority at 1162 n. 5, it affects duties and liabilities.
This contradicts not only the plain meaning of OSHA § 653(b)(4) but also OSHA’s statutory purpose. Section 653(b)(4) makes clear that OSHA was not intended to redefine or affect an employer’s common law or statutory duties. OSHA’s overriding purpose is to prevent workplace injuries. Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 11, 100 S.Ct. 883, 890, 63 L.Ed.2d 154 (1980) (OSHA “is prophylactic in nature.”). It is enforceable by administrative civil and criminal penalties. It, however, does not provide remedies to injured employees. See Dravo Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n., 613 F.2d 1227, 1230 n. 2 (3d Cir.1980) (OSHA does not create a private cause of action). See also Pedraza v. Shell Oil Co., 942 F.2d 48, 52 (1st Cir.1991) (OSHA does not preempt state tort laws). By affecting the duties that give rise to liability under other laws, the majority construes OSHA to accomplish indirectly that which OSHA cannot do directly.
III.
I believe that the breach of any statutory duty may impose negligence per se under FELA absent an intrinsic, prohibitory provision, but that OSHA § 653(b)(4) is such a provision and precludes a plaintiff from introducing evidence of OSHA violations in a FELA action. I join the result reached by the majority.

. I note that OSHA is not specific to the railway industry, but was promulgated "to assure ... safe and healthful working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 651(b). Absent the prohibitory language of OSHA § 653(b)(4), OSHA would interact with FELA and affect employer duties and liabilities.

. But I think OSHA precludes the application of this doctrine and disagree with the Pratico court’s interpretation of OSHA § 653(b)(4). Id. at 264-68 (see Parts IV and V).