The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P worked as a locomotive engineer for D. On April 12, 2004, P was on a run that involved “switching.” The train had an unusual engine configuration: two “wide-body” engines followed by three smaller conventional cabs. P protested that the configuration was unsafe, because switching with heavy, wide-body engines required constant use of a hand-operated independent brake. P was told to take the train as is. P injured his hand while using the independent brake. Despite two surgeries and extensive physical therapy, he never regained full use of the hand. P commenced a FELA action against D. He alleged that D was in requiring him to use equipment unsafe for switching and that D also failed to train him to operate that equipment. The District Court instructed, if the jury found that D “was negligent” and that the “negligence caused or contributed to” P's injury. D sought additional charges that the court declined to give. One of the rejected instructions would have required “P [to] show that . . . D's negligence was a proximate cause of the injury.” Another would have defined “proximate cause” to mean “any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injury complained of,” with the qualification that a proximate cause “need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause.” The District Court employed, as McBride requested: “Defendant 'caused or contributed to' Plaintiff's injury if Defendant's negligence played a part--no matter how small--in bringing about the injury. The mere fact that an injury occurred does not necessarily mean that the injury was caused by negligence.” The jury returned a verdict at $275,000, but reducing that amount by one-third, the percentage the jury attributed to P's negligence. D appealed. D “maintain[ed] that the correct definition of proximate causation is a 'direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.' The Court of Appeals approved the District Court's instruction and affirmed. D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.