Csx Transp., Inc. v. Mcbride

131 S.Ct. 2630 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P worked as a locomotive engineer for D. On April 12, 2004, P was on a run that involved “switching.” The train had an unusual engine configuration: two “wide-body” engines followed by three smaller conventional cabs. P protested that the configuration was unsafe, because switching with heavy, wide-body engines required constant use of a hand-operated independent brake. P was told to take the train as is. P injured his hand while using the independent brake. Despite two surgeries and extensive physical therapy, he never regained full use of the hand. P commenced a FELA action against D. He alleged that D was in requiring him to use equipment unsafe for switching and that D also failed to train him to operate that equipment. The District Court instructed, if the jury found that D “was negligent” and that the “negligence caused or contributed to” P's injury. D sought additional charges that the court declined to give. One of the rejected instructions would have required “P [to] show that . . . D's negligence was a proximate cause of the injury.” Another would have defined “proximate cause” to mean “any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injury complained of,” with the qualification that a proximate cause “need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause.” The District Court employed, as McBride requested: “Defendant 'caused or contributed to' Plaintiff's injury if Defendant's negligence played a part--no matter how small--in bringing about the injury. The mere fact that an injury occurred does not necessarily mean that the injury was caused by negligence.” The jury returned a verdict at $275,000, but reducing that amount by one-third, the percentage the jury attributed to P's negligence. D appealed. D “maintain[ed] that the correct definition of proximate causation is a 'direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.' The Court of Appeals approved the District Court's instruction and affirmed. D appealed.