Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
352 U.S. 500 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), the test for a jury case is whether the evidence reasonably justifies the conclusion that the employer's negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the employee's injury or death.
Facts:
- Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. employed James C. Rogers as a laborer in a section gang.
- Rogers's foreman assigned him to burn off weeds along the railroad tracks using a crude hand torch.
- The railroad had a standing safety instruction requiring workers to stop what they were doing when a train passed, move to a safe position, and observe the train's journals for 'hotboxes'.
- When a train approached, Rogers stopped his work and moved to a path near a culvert to observe it, per his instructions.
- The passing train fanned the flames of the fire Rogers had been setting, enveloping him in smoke and flames.
- Startled by the fire, Rogers retreated instinctively onto the culvert, where he slipped on loose gravel and fell, suffering serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- James C. Rogers sued his employer, Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, a state trial court, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
- The jury at the trial court returned a verdict in favor of Rogers.
- Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of the railroad's liability.
- Rogers, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an appellate court invade the jury's function by overturning a verdict for an employee under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) when there is any evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that employer negligence played any part in the employee's injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. An appellate court invades the jury's function when it overturns a verdict where evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that employer negligence played any part in the injury. Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), the standard for causation is not the common law's proximate cause, but a more lenient standard where the employer is liable if its negligence contributed 'in whole or in part' to the injury. The jury had ample evidence to find the railroad was negligent by assigning Rogers to burn weeds on foot with a crude torch near the tracks and requiring him to stand there to watch passing trains. It was foreseeable that a train would fan the flames, causing a worker to react instinctively to the danger. The Missouri Supreme Court erred by re-weighing the evidence and concluding as a matter of law that Rogers's own actions were the sole cause of his injury, a determination reserved exclusively for the jury when any evidence of employer negligence exists.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies an extremely broad and employee-friendly standard of causation for cases brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. By rejecting the traditional common-law proximate cause standard, the Court makes it very difficult for employers to defeat FELA claims on summary judgment or have jury verdicts overturned on appeal. The ruling champions the role of the jury, establishing that as long as there is any rational inference of employer negligence contributing to an injury, the case must be decided by the jury. This precedent significantly lowers the evidentiary bar for railroad employees and ensures that questions of fault in FELA cases are almost always treated as questions of fact for the jury, not questions of law for the court.
Unlock the full brief for Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.