Case Name: Donald J. Butynksi v. Springfield Terminal Railway Company
Date Decided:  January 22, 2010
Court: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Judge: Judge Selya
Citation: 2010 WL 204294 (C.A.1(Mass.)

Background:
Railroad employee, Donald Butynski brought this action under FELA, Federal Employers’ Liability Act against employer, Springfield Terminal Railway alleging he fractured his wrist in a slip and fall.

While part of a crew assigned to repair tracks, Butynski slipped and fell and in the process of breaking his fall, he fractured his wrist. His injuries were disabling and ended his career with Springfield.

Two weeks prior to Butynski’s fall, the area where he was working had experienced rain, snow, and frigid temperatures. On the day of the fall, the work site was icy, this condition was open and obvious.

Springfield routinely furnished its track-repair personnel with deicers and safety devices capable of being strapped to work books designed to improve footing on snow.

It is the employees responsibility to ask for new equipment if it becomes worn out. Although he knew his ice creepers (for his boots) were worn out months earlier he claimed he unsuccessfully requested replacements on four occasions. Butynski’s foreman confirmed he had asked for new ice creepers.

Springfield denied that the requests had been made. No other supervisory personnel at the rail yard testified they remembered Butynski had asked for new ice creepers.

At trial the jury found Springfield liable and fixed the damages at $511,886 and found plaintiff contributorily negligent  and allocated 60% fault, resulting in a total award of $204,000.

Butynski appealed the jury’s finding of contributory negligence.

Issue:
Was the plaintiff entitled to a judgment as a matter of law with respect to Springfield’s contributory negligence claim?

Held:
This Court recognized that Butynski must show that the record contained insufficient evidence to justify jury consideration of the contributory negligence defense.

The record shows that Butynski did not wear ice creepers on the day in question and that wearing them would have made the workplace safer. The record also shows that the Butynski did not wear his ice creepers because the ones Sprinfield had furnished were no longer usable.

The jury heard contradictory evidence and viewing the evidence as a whole, this Court found that the jury reasonably could have found either that Butynski failed to request new ice creepers or did not request them in a timely manner. Also, the jury could have found that had Springfield had ice creepers on hand and available upon asking, this would have reduced the danger.

Accordingly this Court affirmed the jury’s finding of contributory negligence.

Comment:
Contributory negligence is available as a defense under FELA. It is not a complete bar to recovery but rather it can diminish the recovery in proportion to the parties’ comparative fault. Employers must show that the plaintiff’s own negligence played a part in causing the injury.

Steve Gordon