 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.2/29/2000
of the emotional condition and anxiety he originally developed because of the collision" not recoverable because "such claims are not cognizable under the FELA" and because evidence of subsequent discharge "was not relevant in the present action"); Anderson v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co., 457 F.2d 784, 785 (5th Cir. 1972) ("The admission of the evidence of conduct of the railroad company subsequent to the incident during which [plaintiff's] injury occurred constituted error requiring reversal and a remand for a new trial."); Shepherd v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 791 F. Supp. 1008, 1011 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (disallowing claim in FELA action for "wrongful refusal to reinstate" based on plaintiff's assertion that railroad had wrongfully delayed his post-injury return to work for six months after doctor had released him).
Based on those authorities, had SP 's mitigation-of-damage defense been removed from the case, as SP unsuccessfully suggested before trial, the evidence of its post-accident conduct would have been irrelevant and inadmissible. Whitley does not alter that conclusion. In that case, the appellate court upheld the admission of evidence of emotional distress the plaintiff had suffered from humiliation he had experienced when the railroad discharged him due to the conduct in which he had engaged at the time of his accident. The plaintiff's discharge followed soon after his injury and was based on the same conduct that had caused the injury, his alleged failure to follow company safety rules. Moreover, the railroad contended that all the plaintiff's damages flowed from the discharge, not the accident; thus, the railroad attempted to use the post-accident event to preclude any damage recovery. Under those circumstances, the court in Whitley found that, because the discharge was so inextricably intertwined with the accident, "there a direct chain of events from defendant's negligence to plaintiff's damages." Whitley, 902 P.2d at 1201.
Whitley is clearly distinguishable from this case. SP 's return-to-work order that allegedly exacerbated Yauch's emotional distress occurred more than two years after Yauch's accident. That order was unrelated to the facts of the accident itself, but rather, was prompted by Yauch's failure to return to work, a situation similar to that in Lewy. In sum, the causal link between the accident and any increased emotional distress that Yauch allegedly suffered after SP ordered his return to work is too remote and attenuated to justify admission of the evidence of SP's post-accident conduct.() Admission of that evidence, including Yauch's inflammatory testimony that he had " elt like blowing brains out" after he received SP's March 1998 letter, prejudiced SP.
Although the evidence of SP 's post-accident conduct was not relevant to the emotional distress aspect of Yauch's damage claim, the evidence would be relevant to rebut SP's failure-to-mitigate damage defense. As it did in the trial court, SP implicitly concedes that point. Thus, the admissibility of this evidence on remand depends on what evidence SP seeks to introduce to support its defense.
DISPOSITION
The trial court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
JOHN PELANDER, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
WILLIAM E. DRUKE, Judge
M. JAN FLÓREZ, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|