New York Law Review

Tag: FELA

  • Greco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 85 N.Y.2d 744 (1995): Establishing Negligence Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)

    Greco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 85 N.Y.2d 744 (1995)

    Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that employer negligence played even the slightest part in causing the injury; mere speculation is insufficient.

    Summary

    Greco, an employee of Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail), sued Conrail under FELA for injuries sustained while driving a company vehicle. The Appellate Division dismissed the complaint, finding Greco’s evidence insufficient to establish negligence on Conrail’s part. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even under the lenient standard of FELA, Greco’s evidence amounted to speculation and failed to establish that Conrail’s negligence contributed to his injuries. The Court emphasized that evidence must reasonably support an inference of negligence, not merely suggest possible causes.

    Facts

    Greco was injured while driving a Conrail vehicle. He presented evidence showing the vehicle had been frequently repaired, had exceeded its normal lifespan, and had been driven extensively. Greco argued this demonstrated Conrail’s negligence in maintaining the vehicle, leading to his injuries.

    Procedural History

    The trial court rendered a judgment and verdict in favor of Greco. The Appellate Division modified the decision, vacating the judgment and dismissing the complaint. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Greco presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the FELA standard, proving that Conrail’s negligence played any part, even the slightest, in causing his injuries.

    Holding

    No, because Greco’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law and required total speculation to infer that any negligent act or omission on Conrail’s part caused his injuries.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals found that Greco’s evidence, even under the lenient FELA standard, failed to establish a link between Conrail’s alleged negligence and his injuries. The court stated that the evidence presented was insufficient, and any conclusion of negligence would be based on “total speculation”. The court distinguished between presenting evidence of possible negligence and providing proof that negligence caused the injury. The court rejected the dissent’s argument that additional evidence from Conrail supported Greco’s case, explaining that the expert testimony related to police vehicles generally and not the specific vehicle Greco was driving, and that the service manager’s testimony also did not support Greco’s claim. The court directly quoted Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v Toops, 281 US 351, 355, to emphasize the point about speculation.

  • Davis v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 1088 (1983): Jury Instructions on Taxability of FELA Awards

    58 N.Y.2d 1088 (1983)

    In Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) cases, the trial judge must instruct the jury that any award to the plaintiff is not subject to federal income taxation.

    Summary

    Davis, a railroad engineer, sued Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail) under FELA for injuries sustained when he stepped into scalding water. Conrail admitted liability, and the trial proceeded solely on damages. The trial court refused Conrail’s request to instruct the jury that any award would not be taxable. The jury awarded Davis a total of $1,250,000. The Appellate Division reduced the award for future lost earnings, and the New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the award was not taxable, as required by Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Liepelt. This failure could have led the jury to inflate the award under the mistaken belief that it would be taxed.

    Facts

    Plaintiff Davis, an engineer employed by Conrail, was injured after stepping off a locomotive and into scalding water used to heat switches. Davis sustained severe burns and suffered medical complications. Conrail conceded liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). The trial was limited to the issue of damages.

    Procedural History

    The trial court refused Conrail’s request to instruct the jury that any award would not be subject to taxation. The jury awarded Davis $450,000 for loss of future earnings, $50,000 for loss of past earnings, and $750,000 for general damages. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial unless Davis agreed to a reduction in the award for future lost earnings to $360,000, the amount suggested by counsel in summation. Davis stipulated to the reduction. Conrail appealed, and the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, in a case arising under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), the trial judge is required to instruct the jury that any recovery is not subject to taxation.

    Holding

    Yes, because in a case arising under FELA, the Trial Judge is required to instruct the jury that any recovery is not taxable.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490 (1980), which mandates that juries in FELA cases be instructed that awards are not taxable. The court reasoned that without such an instruction, jurors might erroneously believe that a portion of the award would be subject to taxation, leading them to inflate the award. The court noted that the jury awarded Davis a sum exceeding that requested by his counsel in summation, suggesting the potential for such error. The court quoted Liepelt, stating, “[i]t is surely not fanciful to suppose that the jury erroneously believed that a large portion of the award would be” taxable.” The failure to give the instruction constituted reversible error, warranting a new trial limited to the issue of damages.