• LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS

Supreme Court of The United States

CSX Transportation, Inc. Vs. Mcbride (Decided on 23.06.2011)

Injury during course of employment - Proximate Cause - Damages Sought - 45 U. S. C. §51 Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) - Respondent a locomotive engineer filed a suit due to injury sustained to him while switching the railroad alleging negligence on part of CSX Transport - District Court held in favour of the Respondents holding that the Appellant caused or contributed to Respondents injury if Appellant's negligence played a part no matter how small in bringing about the injury - Hence this appeal

Held, FELA does not incorporate stock "proximate cause" standards developed in non statutory common-law tort actions. The charge proper in FELA cases simply tracks the language employed, informing juries that a Appellant railroad "caused or contributed to" a railroad worker's injury. Relaxed standard as "whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought."Appellant , however, contends that Rogers was a narrowly focused decision that did not displace common-law formulations of "proximate cause." In Rogers, the employee was burning vegetation that lined his employer's railroad tracks. A passing train fanned the flames, which spread to the top of the culvert where he was standing. Attempting to escape, he slipped and fell on the sloping gravel covering the culvert, sustaining serious injuries. The state court jury returned a verdict for him, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed. Even if the railroad had been negligent in failing to maintain a flat surface, the court reasoned, the employee was at fault because of his lack of attention to the spreading fire. As the fire "was something extraordinary, unrelated to, and disconnected from the in-cline of the gravel," the court found that "plaintiff's injury was not the natural and probable consequence of any negligence of defendant." Rogers is most sensibly read as a comprehensive statement of FELA's causation standard. The State Supreme Court there acknowledged that a FELA injury might have multiple causes, but considered the Respondent railroad's part too indirect to establish the requisite causation. That is the very reasoning this Court rejected in Rogers. It is also the reasoning Appellant asks this Court to resurrect. FELA's "in whole or in part" language is straightforward. "Reasonable foreseeability of harm is an essential ingredient of negligence," If negligence is proved, however, and is shown to have "played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury," then the carrier is answerable in damages even if " 'the extent of the injury or the manner in which it occurred' " was not "probable" or "foreseeable." Judgement of District Court affirmed

• COMMERCIAL LAWS

Supreme Curt of the United States

Brown, Governor of California, et al. Vs. Entertainment Merchants Association et al. (Decided on 27.06.2011)

Restriction on sale or rental of violent video games - California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), Cal. Civ. Code Ann. §§1746-1746.5 (West 2009) (Act) - Respondent have filed pre enforcement challenge to the amendment in California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), Cal. Civ. Code Ann. §§1746-1746.5 (West 2009) (Act) which prohibits the sale or rental of violent video games in the State Of California- The Federal District Court concluded that the Act violated the First Amendment and permanently enjoined its enforcement - Hence this appeal

Held, Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And "the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary" with a new and different communication medium. The most basic principle-that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas,subject matter, or content is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test. Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny, i.e., it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. . Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly under inclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint. California also cannot show that the Act's restrictions meet the alleged substantial need of parents who wish to restrict their children's access to violent videos. The video-game industry's voluntary rating system already accomplishes that to a large extent. Moreover, as a means of assisting parents the Act is greatly over inclusive, since not all of the children who are prohibited from purchasing violent video games have parents who disapprove of their doing so. The Act cannot satisfy strict scrutiny. Judgement of District Court affirmed.