Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell
United States Supreme Court
549 U.S. 158, 127 S. Ct. 799, 166 L. Ed. 2d 638 (2007)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Timothy Sorrell (plaintiff) was an employee of Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Norfolk) (defendant). Sorrell got into an accident on the job while driving a dump truck and suffered severe injuries. According to a fellow employee, Sorrell’s own negligent driving contributed to the accident. Sorrell sued Norfolk under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) in Missouri state court to recover damages for his injuries. The jury was tasked with apportioning blame between Norfolk’s and Sorrell’s respective negligence. As to Norfolk, the jury was instructed to find whether Norfolk’s negligence contributed “in whole or in part” to the accident. As to Sorrell, the jury was instructed to find whether his negligence “directly contributed to cause” his injuries. The jury awarded Sorrell substantial damages. Norfolk moved for a new trial on the grounds that the jury should have been instructed to apply the same causation standard to both its and Sorrell’s negligence. The motion was denied. The state court of appeals affirmed, and the state supreme court declined to review the decision. Norfolk then petitioned the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
Concurrence (Ginsburg, J.)
Concurrence (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
