Burbridge v. Union Pacific Railroad
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1097
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Burbridge appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial following a verdict for Union Pacific and Harsco in a FELA case.
- Burbridge alleged instructional error regarding damages (MAI 8.02), and the mitigation damages instruction (MAI 32.07(A)).
- The accident occurred February 15, 2006 when a beam from a Harsco rail grinder struck Burbridge's locomotive, allegedly injuring him.
- Burbridge sought medical evaluation; multiple doctors diagnosed dry eye syndrome and blepharitis, with later opinions suggesting recurrent corneal erosion (RCE) possibility according to Burbridge’s physician.
- Respondents’ experts concluded Burbridge did not suffer injuries causally related to the accident; several doctors found no foreign body or trauma-related damage.
- The jury found for Respondents; the trial court denied Burbridge’s new-trial motion, and Burbridge timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MAI 8.02 damaged instruction was prejudicial | Burbridge argues MAI 8.02 misleads by addressing future pecuniary damages. | Respondents contend MAI 8.02 applicable only if plaintiff prevails; no prejudice since jury did not apply it. | No prejudice; instruction not applicable to verdict. |
| Whether MAI 32.07(A) mitigation instruction was properly submitted | Burbridge asserts insufficient evidence to warrant mitigation instruction and it was misleading. | Respondents had evidence Burbridge failed to mitigate; instruction would not have harmed since jury favored Respondents. | Sufficient evidence supported submission; no prejudice as verdict favored Respondents. |
| Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Burbridge presented evidence of RCE and other injuries and damages tied to the accident. | Evidence supported no trauma-related damages; multiple doctors found no injuries causally linked to the accident. | Verdict not against weight of the evidence; substantial probative evidence supported the trial court's judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hedgecorth v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 210 S.W.3d 220 (Mo.App.E.D. 2006) (use of MAI in FELA cases is mandatory when applicable)
- Griffith v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 559 S.W.2d 278 (Mo.App.E.D. 1977) (MAI preference; mandatory usage in applicable contexts)
- Smith v. Kovac, 927 S.W.2d 493 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996) (ordinary juror understanding; no prejudice when not reached)
- Yaeger v. Olympic Marine Co., 983 S.W.2d 173 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998) (appeals review of new-trial denial treated as judgment appeal)
- Hitt v. Martin, 872 S.W.2d 121 (Mo.App.E.D. 1994) (proper standard for reviewing new-trial issues on appeal)
- Buckner v. Pillsbury Co., 661 S.W.2d 626 (Mo.App.E.D. 1983) (jury credibility and weighing of evidence within exclusive province of jury)
- Keveney v. Missouri Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2010) (jury credibility determinations; weight of evidence standard)