Evidence supported the inference that the defendant railroad corporation’s negligence played a part however, small, in causing the employee to fall and be injured. But the evidence may also have been sufficient to support an inference that the employee’s fall resulted from causes unrelated to the defendant’s negligence. Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, as opposed to common-law tort actions, that juxtaposition created a jury issue as to which inference should be drawn.
Armed with a jury verdict in his favor, approved by the trial court, the plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence, and all the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from it, viewed in the light most favorable to him. He occupies the most favored position known to the law.
Affirmed by 4-3 majority. Justice McCullough wrote a dissenting opinion.