Collins v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 417 Md. 217

Background

Michele Collins sued Amtrak under FELA for survivorship and wrongful death after her husband Robert Collins was electrocuted while taking catenary alignment readings as part of an Amtrak maintenance crew.
The crew, including Collins, worked on the energized catenary system; a safety briefing occurred before the readings were taken with power on.
Collins allegedly died when he mounted the Cat Car roof to tie down the pantograph and contacted an energized railing; stomping was used to signal lowering the pantograph.
Amtrak argued Collins was solely at fault for ignoring a rule and for his own actions; it introduced an assumption-of-risk defense at trial, contrary to FELA’s abolition of that defense.
The trial court denied Collins’s request for a cautionary instruction explaining that assumption of risk is not a defense under FELA; the jury returned a verdict for Amtrak.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Collins petitioned for certiorari, challenging the denial of the instruction and the impact on causation and liability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instruction on assumption of risk was required	Collins argued the evidence implicated assumption of risk and required a cautionary instruction.	Amtrak contends only contributory negligence was at issue; no explicit assumption-of-risk defense was raised.	Yes; the instruction was required and its omission harmed Collins.
Whether FELA abolition of assumption of risk forecloses the defense	FELA abolishes assumption of risk; instruction should reflect that.	Evidence could implicate risk evaluation and voluntary accepting danger; contributory negligence sufficed.	The abolition is operative; jury must be instructed to exclude assumption of risk in evaluating damages and liability.
Whether evidence of Right of Refusal injected assumption of risk into the case	Right of Refusal evidence could suggest assumption of risk was in play.	Policy showed safer alternatives and supported contributory negligence, not assumption of risk.	Evidence could be seen as implying assumption of risk; cautionary instruction was warranted.
Whether evidence of custom and direct vs general orders required a cautionary instruction	Custom to tie down pantograph could indicate direct orders; jury should be instructed accordingly.	Evidence supported Contributory Negligence; no explicit direct order to mount the roof.	Instruction was applicable; the jury could have inferred assumption of risk from direct order or custom.
Whether the verdict sheet structure and absence of the instruction affected causation analysis	Conflation of negligence and causation could lead to impermissible inference of assumption of risk.	Standard negligence causation instructions were adequate.	The mix of causation and assumption-of-risk elements without a clarifying instruction prejudiced Collins.

Key Cases Cited

Norfolk S. Ry. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158 (2007) (abolition of assumption of risk under FELA; remedial purpose)
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Dickerson, 470 U.S. 409 (1985) (procedural vs substantive treatment in FELA context)
Fashauer v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 57 F.3d 1269 (3d Cir. 1995) (assumption of risk vs contributory negligence; cautionary instructions)
Jenkins v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 22 F.3d 206 (9th Cir. 1994) (direct vs general orders; assumption of risk concerns)
Taylor v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 787 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1986) (distinguishing direct orders from general orders; assumption vs contributory negligence)
Koshorek v. Pa. R.R. Co., 318 F.2d 364 (3d Cir. 1963) (distinction between assumption of risk and contributory negligence)
Bickerstaff v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 Md.App. 187 (2009) (evidence of risk perception and cautionary instruction in Maryland appellate context)