Whether FELA permits liability when the plaintiff cannot meet the common-law standard of proof for but-for causation

QUESTION PRESENTED The Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) provides that a railroad “shall be liable in damages” to an employee for an on-the-job injury “resulting in whole or in part from the negligence” of the railroad. 45 U.S.C. § 51. FELA embraces common-law negligence principles unless the statute contains “express language to the contrary.” Norfolk S. Ry. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158, 165-66 (2007). This Court has read FELA’s “resulting in whole or in part” language to mean that the statute does “not incorporate any traditional common-law formulation of ‘proximate causation,” but still requires the plaintiff to show that the railroad’s negligence was at least a but-for cause of his injury. CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685, 694, 703-05 (2011); Rogers v. Mo. Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 506-09 (1957). The question presented is: Whether FELA permits liability when the plaintiff cannot meet the common-law standard of proof for but-for causation. @)