## Facts

- Donald J. Freed worked for Erie Lackawanna Railway Company as a switchman in a rail yard.
- During switching operations, a derailment occurred in the yard and Freed injured his knee.
- Freed’s evidence described hazardous yard conditions, including ice and cinders on or around the track structure.
- Testimony indicated that switches in the yard had recurring problems in cold weather, freezing “two or three times per week.”
- Freed presented evidence that railroad management had been told about the recurring switch trouble and that employees had requested salt or similar materials to address icing, but the railroad allegedly failed to supply what was needed.
- Freed acknowledged that his own oversight could have contributed to the derailment, but he claimed the railroad’s failure to address known icy conditions and switch problems also played a part.
- Freed sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) seeking damages for the injury.
- At the close of Freed’s case-in-chief, the district court granted the railroad’s motion for a directed verdict, taking the case from the jury.
- Freed appealed, arguing the evidence was sufficient for reasonable jurors to find negligence and causation under FELA.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to Freed, a reasonable jury could find the railroad negligent in maintaining yard track and switches and in responding to known icy conditions.
2. Whether the district court erred by directing a verdict for the railroad in light of FELA’s jury-oriented standards for negligence and causation.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the directed verdict and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that Freed’s proof was enough to permit reasonable inferences that the railroad failed to provide a reasonably safe place to work, given evidence of ice, cinders, chronic switch freezing, and notice to management.
- The court held that causation was for the jury under FELA’s relaxed standard; the record did not justify removing the case from the jury at the close of the employee’s evidence.
- The court emphasized that even if Freed’s own conduct may have contributed, that did not justify a directed verdict where a jury could also find employer negligence contributing in some part to the injury.

## Legal Principles

- Under FELA, a case should go to the jury if the proofs allow reasonable inferences of employer negligence.
- A directed verdict is improper where fair-minded jurors could differ on whether the railroad was negligent or whether its negligence played any part in producing the injury.
- FELA causation is satisfied if employer negligence contributed in whole or in part to the injury, even in a small degree; close causation questions generally belong to the jury.
- Evidence that the railroad had notice of recurring hazardous conditions (such as chronic switch freezing and icy track conditions) can support a finding of negligence for failure to correct or guard against the danger.
- Employee fault does not bar recovery under FELA; it is ordinarily a jury issue bearing on comparative fault and damages rather than a basis to take the case from the jury.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the district court should not have directed a verdict for the railroad because Freed presented evidence from which reasonable jurors could find that known icy conditions and recurring switch problems reflected a failure to provide a reasonably safe workplace and that such negligence could have contributed to his knee injury under FELA’s lenient causation standard; the case was reversed and remanded for jury determination.


Freed v. Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co., 445 F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1971)