Model Jury - Section 8
CIVIL INSTRUCTIONS
__________
8. FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT;
FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT
8.01.01 PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (45 U.S.C. §§ 51 and 53)
The plaintiff, , claims that while [he] [she] was employed by the defendant, , a railroad, [he] [she] suffered an injury caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant denies the plaintiff's claim. To help you understand the evidence while it is being presented, I will now explain some of the legal terms you will hear during this trial.
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would use under like circumstances. Someone can be negligent by doing something that a reasonably prudent person would not have done, or by failing to do something that a reasonably prudent person would have done.
It is not enough, however, that someone be negligent because to be held responsible for an injury the person's negligence must also have been a cause of the injury. To be a cause of an injury, the negligence must have played some part, no matter how small, in bringing that injury about.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant should be required to pay damages because its negligence was a cause of an injury suffered by the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff's burden to prove that by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the plaintiff was negligent and that the plaintiff's own negligence was a cause of the claimed injury. The defendant has the burden of proving that by a preponderance of the evidence.
Should you determine that negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant were causes of an injury, then you will reduce any amount of damages proportionally.
8.01.02 PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION FOR FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT (45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.)
The plaintiff also claims that while employed by the defendant the plaintiff suffered an injury which was caused by the defendant's violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act. The defendant denies the plaintiff's claim.
You will have to decide whether the defendant violated the Federal Safety Appliance Act and, if so, whether the violation was a cause of an injury to the plaintiff. To be a cause of an injury, the violation must have played some part, no matter how small, in bringing that injury about.
It is the plaintiff's burden to prove these things by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, however, neither negligence of the plaintiff nor negligence of the defendant is of any concern.
8.02.01 FELA--ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF
[On the plaintiff's claim,] the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. the defendant was negligent; and
2. the defendant's negligence was a [proximate] [legal] cause of an injury to the plaintiff.
If the plaintiff has failed to prove each of these things, your verdict should be for the defendant. If, on the other hand, you find that each of these things has been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff.
[The defendant has the burden of proving each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. the plaintiff was negligent; and
2. the plaintiff's negligence was a [proximate] [legal] cause of the plaintiff's own injury.
If you find that each of the things on which the defendant has the burden of proof has been proved, you must reduce the amount of damages to which the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled.]
Comment
This instruction assumes the usual situation where the parties have stipulated that the defendant is a common carrier covered by the FELA and that the plaintiff was injured in the scope and course of employment with the defendant. If these issues are in dispute, the instruction must be modified accordingly.
Use the second half of this instruction in conjunction with Instruction 8.02.06.
8.02.02 FELA--NEGLIGENCE DEFINED
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is the degree of care that reasonably prudent persons would use under like circumstances to avoid injury to themselves or others. Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under like circumstances.
8.02.03 FELA--[PROXIMATE] [LEGAL] CAUSE
Negligence is a [proximate] [legal] cause of an injury or damage if it played any part, no matter how small, in bringing about the injury or damage. Therefore, even if the negligence operated in combination with the acts of another, or in combination with some other cause, the negligence was a [proximate] [legal] cause of the injury or damage if it played any part, no matter how small, in bringing about the injury or damage.
Comment
See Comment to Instructions 3.09 and 7.01 regarding causation.
8.02.04 FELA--PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEFENDANT'S REQUEST OR DIRECTIONS
The plaintiff is not negligent simply because the plaintiff, upon the request or direction of the defendant, worked at a dangerous job, or in a dangerous place, or under dangerous conditions.
8.02.05 FELA--DAMAGES
Comment
See Instructions 7.01 and 7.02.
8.02.06 FELA--PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE--REDUCTION OF DAMAGES (45 U.S.C. § 53)
If you find for the plaintiff but also find that the plaintiff's own negligence was a [proximate] [legal] cause of the plaintiff's injury, you must reduce the amount of damages to which the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled by the percentage of negligence you attribute to the plaintiff. [For example, if you attribute to plaintiff 10% of the total negligence which caused the plaintiff's injury, the amount you would otherwise award the plaintiff must be reduced by 10%. Of course, by using 10% as an example, I do not mean to suggest any figure to you. The percentage of plaintiff's negligence, if any, is for you to decide.]
Comment
Kopczynski v. The Jacqueline, 742 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1136 (1985) (discussing and applying FELA comparative negligence doctrine in a Jones Act case).
See Taylor v. Burlington N. R.R., 787 F.2d 1309, 1316-17 (9th Cir. 1986) (traditional defense of assumption of risk is barred under FELA and cannot be revived in the form of comparative negligence).
8.03.01 FSAA--ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF (45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.)
[On the plaintiff's claim,] the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. the defendant violated Section of the Federal Safety Appliance Act; and
2. the violation was a [proximate] [legal] cause of an injury to the plaintiff.
[Add appropriate concluding paragraphs from Instructions 5.03, 5.04, or 5.05.]
8.03.02 FSAA--RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ACT
Section of the Federal Safety Appliance Act provides as follows:
[Here insert the provision that the plaintiff claims has been violated.]
8.03.03 FSAA--[PROXIMATE] [LEGAL] CAUSE
A violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act is a [proximate] [legal] cause of an injury or damage if it played any part, no matter how small, in bringing about the injury or damage. Therefore, even if the violation operated in combination with the act of another, or in combination with some other cause, the violation was a [proximate] [legal] cause of the injury or damage if it played any part, no matter how small, in bringing about the injury or damage.
Comment
See Comments to Instructions 3.09 and 7.01 regarding causation.
8.03.04 FSAA--NEGLIGENCE
Negligence plays no part in claims for violations of the Federal Safety Appliance Act. Therefore, the defendant may be liable even if it was not negligent. Similarly, the plaintiff's damages, if any, must not be reduced, even if the plaintiff was negligent.
Comment
This instruction may assist the jury in cases where the claim under the Federal Safety Appliance Act is coupled with a claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
8.03.05 FSAA--DAMAGES
Comment
See Instructions 7.01 and 7.02.