## Facts

- An employee sued his railroad employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for injuries suffered while working under a railcar.
- The evidence permitted a finding that the railroad directed him to work in the place and manner where the injury occurred.
- The work area beneath the railcar had snow and ice that had not been cleared.
- The jury could find the railroad negligent for requiring the employee to perform the work without clearing the snow and ice.
- The jury returned a general verdict for the employee and awarded $30,000 in damages.
- The trial court instructed the jury on FELA comparative negligence (reducing damages for the employee’s contributory fault).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law so that the railroad was entitled to a directed verdict or a new trial on negligence and causation under FELA.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying the railroad’s request for a special verdict and submitting the case on a general verdict.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for the employee.
- The trial court properly denied the railroad’s motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial because the evidence allowed a finding of employer direction and negligence based on the uncleared snow and ice.
- The court treated the jury’s damages award as incorporating any reduction for contributory negligence because the jury was correctly instructed.
- The trial court did not err in refusing a special verdict; use of a general verdict was within the trial judge’s discretion and did not, by itself, show prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Under FELA, evidence that an employer directed an employee’s work and required performance under hazardous conditions can be sufficient to submit negligence to the jury.
- When the jury is properly instructed on FELA comparative negligence and returns a general verdict, an appellate court presumes the jury followed the instructions in fixing damages.
- The choice between a special verdict and a general verdict is generally committed to the trial court’s discretion; the limited transparency of a general verdict is not alone grounds for reversal absent a showing of legal prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a FELA negligence verdict where the jury could find the railroad required work under a railcar despite uncleared snow and ice, and it also held that the trial judge acted within his discretion in using a general verdict rather than requiring special findings.


Skidmore v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 167 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1948)