 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Company8/2/2001
of the locomotive he was operating exploded. The engineer's wife brought an action against her husband's employer under the FELA and the LIA. Groeger, 266 U.S. at 522-23. The trial court entered judgment for the wife following a jury verdict in her favor, and the circuit court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that part of the jury instructions was improper.
The trial court's error involved the part of the jury instructions that allowed the jury to determine whether "the standard of duty imposed by the law required a fusible safety plug to be installed." Id. at 528, 531. The problem with such an instruction, the Court explained, is that the LIA only requires equipment to meet a certain level of safety, and does not require that this level of safety be achieved in any particular manner. Id. at 529 ("carriers were left free to determine how their boilers should be kept in proper condition for use without unnecessary danger"); id. at 530 (" nventions are occurring frequently, and there are many devices to accomplish the same purpose"). Thus, the Court held "that defendant was not liable for failure to furnish the best mechanical contrivances and inventions or to discard appliances upon discovery of later improvements, provided the boiler was in proper condition and safe to operate, as required by the statute." Id. at 529 (emphasis added). Significantly, however, the Supreme Court approved of a jury instruction that incorporated the standard found in the LIA:
The court, in harmony with the provisions of [the LIA], instructed the jury that the standard of defendant's duty was to put and keep the locomotive in proper condition and safe to operate, and that it would be a violation of defendant's duty if the engine * * * was permitted to be in such a condition that it could not be employed * * * without unnecessary peril to life or limb. Groeger, 266 U.S. at 527-28 (emphasis added).
Even more relevant is the Court's observation: "There is nothing in the act or in any rule, regulation or order authorized by it, which specifies the use of fusible plugs. This, however, does not relieve the defendant of the duty to have and keep its boilers safe for use as required by the act." Id. at 529.
Groeger simply does not establish that a violation of a specific FRA regulation is necessary for a court or jury to decide that a locomotive part or appurtenance does not comply with the LIA. To the contrary, it establishes that a violation of the LIA can occur without a violation of a specific FRA regulation. Groeger, 266 U.S. at 529; see also Great N. Ry. v. Donaldson, 246 U.S. 121, 128 (1918) (rejecting railroad's claim that, because a particular type of bolt used in a boiler had not been disapproved by a federal boiler inspector, the adequacy of the bolt under the LIA was conclusively established). As the Court stated in Urie, the LIA "simply outline a general standard which may be more specifically articulated in rules" promulgated by the FRA. 337 U.S. at 190-91 (emphasis added).
Groeger further establishes that, although a fact finder may not decide whether a locomotive part or appurtenance must be equipped with a particular device in order to comply with the requirements of the LIA, a fact finder may determine the broader question of whether the part or appurtenance was "in proper condition and safe to operate" without unnecessary danger of personal injury. Groeger, 266 U.S. at 527; see also 49 U.S.C. ยง 20701. And in doing so, the fact finder may consider the "presence or absence" of a particular device, such as a fusible plug or, in this case, a metal deflector plate. Groeger, 266 U.S. at 531. Contrary to GM's contention, this will not result in inc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|