 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalebout v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.5/6/1999
the jury verdict here and decline to award any damages for future impairment of earning capacity. However, the policy underpinnings of FELA and other FELA cases we have reviewed persuade us to avoid such a harsh result and give Dalebout at least the chance to retry his future-earning-capacity damages without Dr. Bryan's inadmissible testimony.
One of FELA's aims was to ensure that juries would determine a higher percentage of cases than the proportion of those decided by juries at common law. See 13 Personal Injury § 2.02 (Louis R. Frumer & Melvin I. Friedman eds., 1998); see also 11 Am. Jur. Trials, supra, § 187 (stating Supreme Court has strongly emphasized "integrity of the jury system in FELA cases"). "In other words, the legislation was remedial and trial by jury was part of the remedy. Accordingly, the jury's power to draw inferences under FELA is significantly broader than at common law." 13 Personal Injury, supra, § 2.02 ; accord Belt, 1997 Neb. App. LEXIS 110, at *24; see also 11 Am. Jur. Trials, supra, § 135 ("There is much room, perhaps more in FELA cases than in most litigation, for the use of circumstantial evidence and for the jury to draw inferences of negligence and of the other elements of the claim from the facts in evidence. It does not matter that possible inferences may be conflicting. It is the very essence of the jury's function to select from among conflicting inferences and Conclusions those that it considers most reasonable."). Thus, "although there are [FELA] cases that may be resolved as a matter of law, such cases are very few." 11 Am. Jur. Trials, supra, § 188. Our function as an appellate court "'is exhausted when the evidentiary basis becomes apparent, it being immaterial that the court might draw a contrary inference or feel that another Conclusion is more reasonable.'" CSX Transp. Inc. v. Maynard, 667 So. 2d 642, 644 (Ala. 1995) (quoting Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653, 66 S. Ct. 740, 744 (1946)).
In light of these principles, some jurisdictions require no more than proof that the plaintiff has a permanent injury somehow causing work difficulties to send to the jury the question of damages for impairment of future earning capacity. See, e.g., id. at 647 ("'A complaint alleging permanent injury is sufficient to imply impairment of earning capacity.'" (Citation omitted.)); Honeycutt v. Wabash R.R. Co., 313 S.W.2d 214, 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 1958) (" roof that plaintiff suffered a permanent injury is sufficient evidence for a recovery for loss of future earnings . . . [so long as there is] a causal relationship between the permanent injury and the impairment of ability to work."). Certainly, in this case, at least that much evidence exists: Dr. Bryan testified that Dalebout will suffer from back pain and need treatment for the rest of his life. Dalebout testified that, although he generally works with his hands, he is quite physically uncomfortable at work and his job description requires that he be able to help lift up to eighty-three pounds, which would be hard for him. The Union Pacific representative testified that the railroad could require Dalebout to submit to a physical examination at any time to ensure he is fit for duty, including the lifting criterion. From Dalebout and the Union Pacific representative's testimony, the jury could infer that Dalebout's permanent injury might impair his ability to work. However, we need not rely solely on that proof in determining sufficient evidence exists to send this issue back to the jury.
The evidence showed that Dalebout did not finish college, has been working for the railroad for much of his adult life, and has very little work experience in other contexts. What little outside work experience he
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|