## Facts

- Leon L. Cruzan was employed by New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. as a brakeman on a freight train engaged in interstate commerce.
- While the freight train was in motion, Cruzan was performing his assigned work on the side of a freight car and started down the car’s side ladder.
- At about the same time, another train operated by the railroad (moving on a nearby track) approached and passed the area where Cruzan was on the ladder.
- Cruzan was struck by the passing train and was killed.
- Cruzan (as the representative of the decedent’s estate) brought a wrongful-death action against the Railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
- At trial, the plaintiff offered evidence from which negligence in the railroad’s operation of the trains could be inferred, including evidence bearing on the proximity and timing of the passing movement and the safeguards used (or not used) for employees working on the freight cars.
- The Railroad asked the judge to direct a verdict in its favor, arguing that the evidence did not permit a finding of negligence and that the decedent’s own conduct required judgment for the Railroad as a matter of law.
- The trial judge refused to direct a verdict for the Railroad, and the case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff.
- The Railroad filed exceptions, bringing the case to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, was sufficient to permit a jury to find that the Railroad’s negligence contributed in whole or in part to Cruzan’s death under FELA, such that a directed verdict for the Railroad was improper.
2. Whether the decedent’s conduct required the court, as a matter of law, to take the case from the jury (including on theories of contributory negligence or assumption of risk).

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court overruled the Railroad’s exceptions.
- The court held that the plaintiff’s evidence allowed a reasonable jury to infer negligence by the Railroad in the operation and management of the train movements that led to the fatal impact.
- The court held that the decedent’s conduct did not require judgment for the Railroad as a matter of law; any fault by the decedent presented, on this record, a question for the jury rather than a basis for a directed verdict.
- Because there was evidence supporting negligence and causal contribution under FELA, the trial judge properly refused to direct a verdict for the Railroad, and the plaintiff’s verdict stood.

## Legal Principles

- In a FELA case, if there is evidence from which reasonable jurors could find that the carrier’s negligence played any part in producing the injury or death, the case must be submitted to the jury.
- A directed verdict for the railroad is appropriate only when the evidence permits no reasonable finding of negligence and causal contribution.
- Questions concerning an employee’s due care while performing assigned railroad duties commonly depend on the surrounding facts and ordinarily are for the jury, not the court, to resolve at the directed-verdict stage.
- At the directed-verdict stage, a court does not decide between competing inferences when the plaintiff’s proof supports an inference of negligence sufficient for jury consideration.

## Conclusion

Cruzan held that a FELA wrongful-death claim could not be removed from the jury where the evidence permitted an inference that the railroad’s operation of a passing train created an unsafe condition that contributed to a brakeman’s death. The Supreme Judicial Court therefore overruled the railroad’s exceptions and left the plaintiff’s verdict in place, treating the railroad’s negligence and the decedent’s conduct as matters for the jury on the trial record.


Cruzan v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co., 227 Mass. 594, 116 N.E. 879 (1917)