Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1957 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureFederal Employers' Liability ActJury trialCausationFELAjury functioncausationany part even the slightest

Facts

Rogers, a section laborer, was assigned to burn weeds and vegetation along a narrow path beside respondent's tracks using a crude hand torch, although he testified that such burning was customarily done with flame throwers operated from cars on the tracks. His foreman had explicitly instructed him to stop work when trains passed and move off the tracks and ties to watch passing trains for hotboxes. While standing near a culvert obeying those instructions, a passing train fanned the flames and smoke from the burning vegetation around him, and as he retreated he slipped and fell from the culvert, suffering serious injuries. He alleged negligence in requiring him to work under those conditions near passing trains and in the culvert surface being covered with loose, sloping gravel rather than a usual flat surface.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient under FELA to require submission to the jury on the question of the railroad's liability. More specifically, the question was whether the Missouri Supreme Court improperly displaced the jury by treating Rogers's conduct or other possible causes as defeating the jury's verdict.

Rule

In FELA cases, the test of a jury case is whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part at all, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought. Judicial review is narrowly limited to that inquiry, and the case belongs to the jury unless fair-minded jurors cannot honestly differ on whether employer fault played any part; it is not necessary that the employee exclude other possible causes or prove the employer's negligence was the sole, efficient, or but-for cause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Elena Cruz worked for Red Prairie Rail Lines clearing scrap lumber from a narrow service strip beside an active track. Her supervisor required her to pause cleanup whenever freight cars passed and stand in a marked observation spot to inspect the cars for overheated bearings; while doing so, wind from a passing train blew loose packing foam into her face, and she stumbled into a drainage rut and broke her wrist.

At trial under FELA, the railroad moves for judgment as a matter of law, arguing Elena cannot prove the railroad's negligence was the but-for cause because she may simply have misstepped. How should the court rule?

Explanation. Under the majority's rule, a FELA case goes to the jury if the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part at all, even the slightest, in producing the injury. The employee need not prove but-for causation, sole causation, or exclude other possible causes. If the unsafe work arrangement and required observation position could reasonably be found to have contributed, judgment as a matter of law is improper. (Derived from Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (1957).)