Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Labor Law

Labor LawFederal Employers' Liability ActEmployer negligenceExpert testimonyCausationDirected verdictFELAdirected verdict

Facts

Steele, an experienced switchman, injured his back while throwing a manual switch in L&N's yard after testifying that on the third attempt the lever became hard to move and seemed to lock. There was evidence that the ballast around the ties at the switch was insufficient, that the roadbed sloped, that ballast shifted continually, and that improper ballast could cause the switch stand and rails to move and make the lever bind or become hard to throw. Steele later underwent back surgeries and, nearly five years after the accident, suffered a heart attack; he amended his complaint to allege that the accident and its aftermath contributed to that heart attack. Dr. Davolos testified that the injury, surgeries, pain, inactivity, and related frustrations probably accelerated preexisting coronary disease and helped precipitate the myocardial infarction, while two defense doctors disagreed on causation though they also testified that Steele had arteriosclerotic heart disease.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in denying L&N's motion for a directed verdict on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that L&N had actual or constructive notice of an unsafe place to work. Whether the district court also erred in refusing to strike Dr. Davolos's expert testimony because the hypothetical omitted preexisting arteriosclerosis and because the opinion was allegedly incompetent or nonprobative.

Rule

In a FELA case, the evidence must be viewed, together with reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The case is for the jury if the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury, and the question is whether the railroad, by failing to exercise all reasonable care, participated in any manner to effect or permit the unsafe condition. Conflicts in expert medical testimony are for the jury, and expert testimony need not be stricken where the basis for the opinion is sufficiently supported for the jury to assess its weight.

🔒

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 a rail yard outside Toledo, Ohio, switchman Aaron Pike injured his shoulder while forcing a manual turnout lever that had become unusually stiff. At trial, he offered evidence that runoff had eroded stone support near the ties, the ground slanted away from the switch stand, and the railroad could not produce records showing routine inspection of that area.

On the railroad's motion for a directed verdict, how should the court rule?

Explanation. Under FELA, the case goes to the jury if the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury. Evidence of inadequate support around the switch, sloping ground, and no proof of regular inspection permits a jury inference that the railroad failed to exercise reasonable care and thereby permitted an unsafe condition. Actual knowledge and sole causation are not required. (Derived from Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. (n.d.).)