| |
| | Hyatt v Metro-North Commuter R.R. (2005 NYSlipOp 01849) |
 | | As with all factual issues under FELA, the right of the jury to pass on this issue must be liberally construed, with the jury's power to draw inferences greater than in a common-law action (see Williams v Long Is. R.R. Co., 196 F3d 402, 407 [2d Cir 1999]). |
 | | While plaintiff still must show that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the defective condition (see Pidgeon v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 248 AD2d 318, 319 [1998]; Gallose v Long Is. R.R. Co., 878 F2d 80, 85 [2d Cir 1989]), notice generally presents an issue of fact. |
 | | However, these elements are substantially relaxed under FELA (see Syverson v Consolidated Rail Corp., 19 F3d 824, 826 [2d Cir 1994]), and negligence is liberally construed to effectuate the statute's broadly remedial intended function (see Goldwater v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 101 F3d 296, 298 [2d Cir 1996]). |
| www.courts.state.ny.us /REPORTER/3dseries/2005/2005_01849.htm (3897 words) |
|