 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Winslow v. Montana Rail Link9/6/2005
acts to MRL surrounding his hernia in violation of MRL rules. MRL further concluded that Winslow's hernia was not work-related, and informed Winslow's medical providers to this effect.
Following the termination of his employment, and after MRL denied Winslow's internal appeal, Winslow submitted his case to arbitration before the Special Board of Adjustment (SBA) as provided in the CBA. The SBA met on December 20, 1996, affirmed Winslow's termination, and concluded that Winslow received a fair and impartial fact-finding hearing.
On August 29, 1997, Winslow filed a complaint in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, claiming that MRL "negligently mismanaged its investigation" and that he was wrongfully discharged. Winslow argued that, pursuant to § 39-2-703(1), MCA, MRL's termination constituted "mismanagement and neglect." Section 39-2-703(1), MCA, provides in pertinent part:
Every person or corporation operating a railway or railroad in this state is liable for all damages sustained by any employee of such person or corporation in consequence of the neglect of any other employee thereof or by the mismanagement of any other employee thereof and in consequence of the willful wrongs, whether of commission or omission, of any other employee thereof when such neglect, mismanagement, or wrongs are in any manner connected with the use and operation of any railway or railroad on or about which he is employed.
The District Court initially dismissed Winslow's complaint for lack of jurisdiction on MRL's Rule 12(h), M.R.Civ.P., motion, concluding that Winslow's claim "requires interpretation of the CBA and is therefore preempted" by the Railroad Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188. Winslow I, 26. However, this Court reversed, concluding that the plain language of Winslow's complaint properly invoked the mismanagement provisions of § 39-2-703, MCA, made no reference to the CBA, and therefore was not preempted by the RLA. Winslow I, 27.
After remand, the case proceeded to jury trial on Winslow's claims that MRL was liable for negligent mismanagement and retaliatory discharge. On June 11, 2003, the jury returned a verdict concluding that each party was negligent, allocating 61.25 percent liability to MRL, and 38.75 percent liability to Winslow. Applying this determination to the damage award, the District Court entered a judgment against MRL in the amount of $384,328.43. After the jurors were polled about the verdict, one of the jurors was excused to fulfill a commitment he had explained during jury selection. The next day, the parties met in camera to discuss the apparent inconsistency in the jury's special verdict, on punitive damages--that MRL had not acted with malice with respect to its termination of Winslow, but that punitive damages should nonetheless be assessed. After taking arguments, the District Court concluded that punitive damages could not be assessed under the verdict pursuant to § 27-1-221, MCA, which requires a finding of actual malice or actual fraud. Consequently, the District Court accepted the jury's verdict and released the eleven remaining jurors.
Throughout the proceeding, Winslow asserted that MRL engaged in discovery abuses which delayed and multiplied the proceedings and prevented him from receiving a fair and speedy trial. However, the District Court declined to impose sanctions.
On July 7, 2003, Winslow filed a notice of appeal. On July 29, 2003, MRL filed a notice of cross-appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews a district court's ruling on summary judgment de novo. Wombold v. Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. of Mont. Inc., 2004 MT 397, 29, 325
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|