## Facts

- Clyde Wilkerson, a railroad switchman, was injured while working in a coach yard when he fell into a wheel pit.
- To perform his duties, Wilkerson crossed the pit on a narrow wooden boardway spanning the pit (about 20–22 inches wide).
- Wilkerson alleged the railroad failed to provide a safe place to work because the boardway was not firmly set, not securely attached, and had become greasy, oily, and slippery, causing him to slip and fall.
- The railroad admitted the pit existed and that Wilkerson fell into it, but denied negligence and claimed Wilkerson’s negligence was the sole proximate cause.
- Trial evidence included conflicting testimony about the boardway’s condition and the extent to which employees routinely used it; a chain enclosure surrounded the pit but left the boardway readily accessible.

## Issues

1. In a Federal Employers’ Liability Act action, whether the evidence (and reasonable inferences) was sufficient to require submission of railroad negligence to the jury, making a directed verdict for the railroad error.
2. Whether disputes about the condition and customary use of the boardway, and the railroad’s notice of danger, were for the jury rather than the court.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held there was evidence from which a jury could find the railroad negligent in maintaining a safe workplace, so directing a verdict against Wilkerson was error.
- The Court concluded the state courts improperly resolved conflicts in testimony and drew inferences against the employee, instead of leaving those determinations to a jury.

## Legal Principles

- In deciding whether a directed verdict is proper in a FELA negligence case, a court considers only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the party against whom the verdict was directed.
- If the evidence would allow a finding either way on negligence, the case must be submitted to the jury; courts may not weigh credibility or resolve factual conflicts.
- FELA imposes liability only for negligence and does not make a railroad an insurer of employee safety.
- Negligence under FELA is measured by what a reasonable and prudent person would do under the circumstances, with care commensurate with the dangers of railroad work.
- Employee contributory negligence does not bar recovery under FELA if the railroad’s negligence played a part in causing the injury; it reduces damages in proportion to the employee’s fault.

## Conclusion

Because the record contained evidence and permissible inferences supporting a finding that the railroad failed to maintain the pit boardway in a reasonably safe condition, the negligence question had to be decided by a jury, and the directed verdict for the railroad could not stand.


Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53 (1949)