The Plaintiff in this action was working as an assistant conductor on MTA Metro-North's New Haven Line, [MTA] when she was physically attacked by a passenger while seeking to collect the passenger's fare. MTA Metro-North Railroad made a motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's sole claim under the Federal Employee Liability Act [FELA]. Supreme Court denied MTA's motion and MTA appealed. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division explained:
1. The FELA, 45 USC §51 et seq., provides that operators of interstate railroads shall be liable to their employees for on-the-job injuries resulting from the railroad's negligence.
2. In an action under FELA, "the plaintiff must prove the traditional common-law elements of negligence: duty, breach, damages, causation and foreseeability" but these elements are "substantially relaxed" and "negligence is liberally construed to effectuate the statute's broadly remedial intended function."
3. A claim under FELA "must be determined by the jury if there is any question as to whether employer negligence played a part, however small, in producing a plaintiff's injury" but, citing Pidgeon v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 248 AD2d 318, the court noted that "A case is deemed unworthy of submission to a jury only if evidence of negligence is so thin that on a judicial appraisal, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that negligence by the employer could have played no part in an employee's injury."
4. To establish the element of foreseeability, a plaintiff must show that the employer had either actual or constructive notice of the defective condition but notice generally presents an issue of fact for the jury to determine.
Thus, under the "relaxed standard," the court found that Plaintiff had submitted sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact concerning MTA's actual or constructive notice of a risk of assault to conductors on the New Haven Line sufficient to be submitted to a jury based on Plaintiff testimony that:
[a] she was previously assaulted by a passenger;
[b] there was an ongoing problem of physical intimidation by large groups of adolescents refusing to pay their fares;
[c] Plaintiff had testified that she has called the MTA's rail traffic controllers for police assistance at least 250 times to deal with abusive passengers;
[d] another conductor was punched in the face and knocked out; and
[e] a passenger attempted to stab and rob another conductor on the Harlem Line.
Considering this testimony, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court's summary judgment rejecting MTA's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint was properly denied.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: