 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Roberson5/11/2000
As amended September 7, 2000. Certified for publication.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY D/B/A UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT
v.
WILLIAM J. ROBERSON, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 172nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. E-150,224
Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Stover, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ronald L. Walker, Chief Justice
OPINION
William Roberson, appellee, brought the underlying lawsuit against his employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company, appellant, pursuant to the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-60 (West 1986). Following trial by jury, the trial court entered judgment upon the verdict which awarded Mr. Roberson over $1.5 million for a knee injury sustained in performing his duties as a carman. The railroad's post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and motion for new trial were both denied by the trial court. The railroad brings three appellate issues to us for consideration, viz:
1) Did the trial court commit reversible error in refusing to submit properly worded jury instructions on the plaintiff's contributory negligence?
2) Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion for JNOV because there was no evidence of appellant's negligence?
3) Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion for remittitur because there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to support the amount of the jury's award of damages?
We initially consider the railroad's second appellate issue. A motion for JNOV should be granted when the evidence is conclusive and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 227-28 (Tex. 1990). In reviewing the denial of a motion for JNOV, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury findings, considering only the evidence and inferences that support them, and disregarding all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Navarette v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex. 1986). If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the findings, the motion for JNOV was properly denied. Mancorp, 802 S.W.2d at 228. The railroad's appellate burden is exacerbated by the fact that in an FELA case, a plaintiff is only required to prove that the railroad's negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought. See Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, 499, 77 S.Ct. 443 (1957); Mitchell v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 786 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1990). Furthermore, 45 U.S.C.A. § 54 provides the following, in pertinent part:
In any action brought against any common carrier . . . to recover damages for injuries to . . . any of its employees, such employees shall not be held to have assumed the risks of his employment in any case where such injury . . . resulted in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents or employees of such carrier.
The jury was so instructed.
The testimony of Mr. Roberson reflects that on October 10, 1991, while working as a carman inspecting railroad cars for his employer, Missouri Pacific/Union Pacific, he sustained an injury to his left knee when his foot slipped on some large, loose ballast that was abundant in the area where he was working. Said area was known as the "classification tracks." Mr. Roberson testified that he sustained a similar, but less severe, injury in 1987, on his right
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|