Williams v. Long Island RR Co.

• Decision Date: 01 August 1999
• Docket Number: Docket No. 99-7064
• Citation: 196 F.3d 402
• Parties: (2nd Cir. 1999) Cecilio B. Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 402

196 F.3d 402 (2nd Cir. 1999)

Cecilio B. Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 99-7064

August Term, 1999

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circuit

Argued: August 25, 1999

Decided: November 10, 1999

Appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sterling Johnson, Jr., Judge), after dismissal as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) of the plaintiff's complaint brought pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq. We hold that the plaintiff's case should have been allowed to go to the jury given the relaxed standard of negligence applicable in FELA cases and the questions of fact evident in the record.

Reversed and remanded.

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Michael Levine, Esq., Altier & Vogt, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. William G. Ballaine, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: Winter, Chief Judge, and Kearse, and Straub, Circuit Judges.

Straub, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Cecilio B. Williams appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sterling Johnson, Jr., Judge), after dismissal as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) of the plaintiff's complaint brought pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. 51-60. Because it is not clear under the relaxed standard of negligence applicable in FELA cases that the Long Island Railroad ("LIRR") did not breach its duty to the plaintiff, we reverse and remand to the District Court for a trial on the merits.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an accident that occurred while Williams was on duty at his employment as a Building and Bridges Mechanic ("B&B mechanic") for the LIRR. At the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief in this FELA action, the LIRR moved for judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiff's failure to prove negligence. The District Court denied the motion without prejudice to renewal. Subsequently, during the defense case, although apparently before the defendant rested, the District Court advised the parties that it had--had an opportunity to examine the plaintiff's testimony and that the testimony had failed to establish the LIRR's negligence.

I. The Plaintiff's Case-In-Chief

Williams testified at trial that, as a B&B mechanic, he was responsible for performing construction on the bridges, buildings, and structures of the LIRR system. One of those duties is to set up temporary platforms, which are aluminum walkways, approximately twelve feet long and three to four feet wide, used to bridge the space over an out-of-service railroad track next to a permanent platform in a station. A temporary platform allows passengers to walk from the permanent station platform across the non-functioning track and board a train on a second track. A temporary platform rests partially on the permanent platform on which it is stored, and partially on two metal support poles located between the operable and inoperable tracks. Thus, in order for a temporary platform to function, it must be pulled out from the permanent platform on which it is stored and connected to the metal support poles. The B&B mechanics must perform this task while standing on track level, approximately fifty inches below the permanent platform on which the temporary platform rests.

On August 24, 1996, Williams and two other LIRR employees were assigned to man a temporary platform on the eastbound platform of the Queens Village Station. Williams and one of his co-workers, Salvatore Sboto, pulled out the temporary platform from the permanent platform on which it had been stored. According to Williams, there are no "stairs" leading to or from the permanent platform to the track level. Accordingly, in order to get back onto the permanent platform from track level, Williams stepped up on a stack of several new railroad ties placed behind the permanent platform by LIRR employees and pulled himself up. Railroad ties are made of wood and soaked in a protective solution called creosote, which prevents water from soaking through to the ties and rotting them and, consequently, makes the ties slippery when wet.

That night it was pouring rain. After Williams and Sboto had pulled the temporary platform back in, Williams again tried to climb onto the railroad ties to get himself back on the permanent platform, but he slipped and fell and hit his knee on the ties. Williams was treated that night at the hospital, and was eventually diagnosed as having an avulsion fracture of the left patella and a rupture of his left quadriceps tendon. According to Williams, Sboto simply jumped up onto the platform from the track level.

When asked why he used the ties to climb back onto the permanent platform, Williams stated "[b]ecause, in my opinion, there was no other way to get up there." He also acknowledged that he had used this method of getting back onto the platform before and that, in fact, it was his "usual way" of doing it. Williams admitted on cross examination that he did not know if there was a ladder at the east end of the platform, and had not bothered to look if there was one.

Williams also attempted to enter into evidence as a business record an accident report concerning the incident. The LIRR objected because the report contained a section on "remedial measures." Williams suggested admitting a redacted version of the report, which the LIRR argued was cumulative because it described events as to which Williams had already testified. The District Court did not admit the report, initially based on a ruling that it was hearsay, and indicated that even if it were a business record, "the witness testified as to what the accident circumstances were."

II. The Defense Case

When called by the defense, Sboto testified that he in fact had used a ladder, located at the east end of the platform, to get up and down from the permanent platform to track level. On cross examination, Sboto admitted that he had to walk approximately 300 feet to get to the ladder, and that the ties on the track that he had to walk over to get to the ladder were also wet and soaked in creosote. The District Court precluded the plaintiff from further pursuing a line of questioning regarding the conditions of the path that Sboto took.

Robert Fleming, Assistant Supervisor of Structures for the LIRR at the time of the accident, testified that the LIRR chains ladders to temporary platforms at other locations, and that there were portable ladders available for the LIRR to distribute to the station where Williams worked.

The District Court prohibited Williams from any further inquiry as to the feasibility of chaining a ladder to the temporary platform.

DISCUSSION

I. Judgment As a Matter of Law

We review a district court's decision granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying the same standards as the district court to determine whether judgment as a matter of law was appropriate. See Merrill Lynch Interfunding, Inc. v. Argenti, 155 F.3d 113, 120 (2d Cir. 1998).

A. Standard for Evaluating Evidence in FELA Cases

The parties debate at great length the proper standard for determining whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant sending a case to a jury in a FELA action. The LIRR is correct, and the District Court noted, that FELA is not a strict liability statute, see Sinclair v. Long Island R.R., 985 F.2d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 1993), and the fact that an employee is injured is not proof of negligence. See Eaton v. Long Island R.R Co., 398 F.2d 738, 741 (2d Cir. 1968). However, it is also true that a relaxed standard of negligence applies in FELA cases in this Circuit. See Syverson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 19 F.3d 824, 826 (2d Cir. 1994) (reversing a district court's judgment as a matter of law in a FELA case).

The Supreme Court has said, based on the explicit language of the statute, that with respect to causation, a relaxed standard applies in FELA cases so that an employer is liable for injuries caused "in whole or in part" by the employer's negligence. Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506-07 (1957) (quoting 45 U.S.C. 51, which states in relevant part: "Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States . . .

shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury . . . or . . . death . . . resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier . . . ."). While some circuits have limited the application of the "in whole or in part" language to the element of causation and apply traditional standards to the duty of care owed, see, e.g., Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 335 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc), this Circuit has explicitly stated that it construes "the statute, in light of its broad remedial nature, as creating a relaxed standard for negligence as well as causation," Ulfik v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 77 F.3d 54, 58 & n.1 (2d Cir. 1996) (noting that the Supreme Court has not expressly held that a relaxed standard for negligence, as opposed to causation, applies under FELA) (citing Syverson, 19 F.3d at 825); see also Eaton, 398 F.2d at 741 ("[T]here can be no doubt that under [FELA] the right of the jury to pass upon the question of fault and causality must be most liberally viewed." (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, in the Second Circuit, an employer breaches its duty under FELA "if it knew or should have known of a potential hazard in the workplace, and yet failed to exercise reasonable care to inform and protect its employees." Ulfik, 77 F.3d at 58; see also Syverson, 19 F.3d at 826; Sinclair, 985 F.2d at 76 (all citing Gallose v. Long Island R.R., 878 F.2d 80, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1989)). The test is "whether the proofs justify...