The Court’s Considerations

9 Two considerations guide our analysis here.

First, "[a] plaintiff's burden in a FELA action is . . . significantly lighter than it would be in an ordinary negligence case." Williams, 161 F.3d at 1061. To prove its claim, a plaintiff must show that the railroad breached its "duty to use reasonable care in furnishing its employees with a safe place to work" by causing an injury which a reasonably prudent person would anticipate under the circumstances. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 558 (1987); see also Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 118 (1963). Unlike common law negligence actions, FELA "imposes on the plaintiff the burden of showing only slight negligence." Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. v. Hearson, 422 F.2d 1037, 1040 (10th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, a plaintiff need only show that "'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.'" Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532, 543 (1994) (quoting Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506 (1957)). Still, it should be noted that despite this reduced evidentiary burden, "FELA does not make the employer the insurer of the safety of his employees" and the plaintiff must produce some evidence of the employer's negligence beyond the simple fact that an injury has occurred. Id. (quotations and citation omitted).