 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.6/28/2002
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
. This cause is before the court on appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to appellee, Norfolk Southern Railway. Appellant, James B. Jones, Sr., appeals that judgment and asserts the following assignment of error:
. "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING NORFOLK'S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT NOTWITH-STANDING THE VERDICT BECAUSE THE JURY'S CONCLUSION WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE POSSIBILITY OF REASON."
. Appellant instituted the present action pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), Section 51 et seq., Title 45, U.S. Code, which allows a railroad employee who is injured during the course of his or her employment to bring suit against his or her employer. Under FELA, the employee must plead and prove that the injury is the result, in whole or in part, of the negligence of any officer, agent or employee of the railroad. Vance v. Consol. Rail Corp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 222, 227.
. In the case before us, appellant claimed that the railroad negligently failed to (1) provide a reasonably safe working environment; (2) furnish sufficient manpower to perform the assigned task; (3) provide safe and suitable tools to perform the assigned task; and (4) provide reasonably safe methods of work. A jury trial was held on these issues. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant, awarding him $1.4 million.
. Appellee, however, filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative, a motion for a new trial or for remittitur. In granting the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court found that appellant failed to offer even a scintilla of evidence showing that appellee breached a duty of care to appellant. The court held that as a consequence of its ruling, the motions for a new trial and remittitur were moot.
. Appellant asserts, in his sole assignment of error, that the jury verdict was not outside the possibility of reason because appellant offered, at a minimum, slight evidence that appellee was negligent and that this negligence, in whole or part, caused his back injury .
. The standard for granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 50(B) is the same as that for granting a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to Civ.R. 50(A). Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. (1998) 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 679.
. "When a motion for a directed verdict has been properly made, and the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determina-tive issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party, the court shall sustain the motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue." Civ.R. 50(A)(4).
. When considering the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a court must "neither consider the weight of the evidence nor the credibility of the witnesses." Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d at 679. The determination of the motion is a question of law "'because it examines the materiality of the evidence, as opposed to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.'" Id. at 680 (Citations omitted.).
. Appellant, who was thirty-nine years of age at the time of trial, began working for appellee in 1990 in "carpentry bridge and building," better known as "B&B;" In this trade, railroad employees engage in the maintenance and repair of railr
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|