Franklin David Barker v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
15-0908
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- Franklin Barker, a Union Pacific conductor, performed a strenuous one-man yard job in Ames in January that involved ~10 miles of walking, coupling 96 cars, climbing cars, fixing air leaks, and heavy manual work.
- Barker developed stiffness and soreness after the shift and subsequently suffered rhabdomyolysis leading to kidney failure; he sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
- Union Pacific defended by claiming Barker’s later-diagnosed genetic condition (LCHAD) made him susceptible and contested causation and expert testimony; Barker argued the excessive assigned work caused his injury.
- A jury awarded Barker $3,543,716; the district court admitted treating nephrologist Dr. Thomas’s causation testimony, refused certain defense instructions (apportionment, foreseeability amplification, mitigation), and gave an eggshell-plaintiff instruction.
- On appeal Union Pacific challenged sufficiency of negligence/causation evidence, Dr. Thomas’s qualifications, and several jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of negligence and causation | Barker: substantial evidence showed Union Pacific assigned unreasonably excessive work that played some part in causing rhabdomyolysis and kidney failure | Union Pacific: evidence showed genetic predisposition (LCHAD) and experts said exertion was inconsistent with published causes | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported negligence and the relaxed FELA causation standard; jury could credit treating physician over defense expert |
| Expert qualifications (Dr. Thomas) | Barker: treating nephrologist competent to opine on rhabdomyolysis, kidney injury, and related physiology | Union Pacific: Dr. Thomas lacked genetics and physiology specialization to opine on causation | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; liberal admissibility and Dr. Thomas’s training/experience sufficient |
| Apportionment for preexisting LCHAD | Barker: LCHAD was latent/asymptomatic and not shown to have caused prior disability; eggshell-plaintiff rule applies | Union Pacific: jury should apportion damages attributable to preexisting genetic disease | Affirmed — no error declining apportionment; instruction unnecessary where preexisting condition was asymptomatic and evidence supported full recovery for aggravation |
| Other jury instructions (assumption-of-risk withdrawal, foreseeability, mitigation) | Barker: given evidence, withdrawal of assumption-of-risk, refusal to amplify foreseeability, and no mitigation instruction were proper | Union Pacific: court erred by giving withdrawal, refusing foreseeability language and mitigation instruction | Affirmed — withdrawal was warranted by defense testimony; FELA’s relaxed causation made added foreseeability language unnecessary; no evidence to support mitigation instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dudley v. Ellis, 486 N.W.2d 281 (Iowa 1992) (substantial-evidence standard for directed verdict/JNOV)
- Fletcher v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 621 F.2d 902 (8th Cir. 1980) (railroad negligent if assignment exposes employee to unreasonable risk)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2011) (FELA adopts relaxed causation standard — employer negligence that played any part suffices)
- Waits v. United Fire & Casualty Co., 572 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 1997) (latent, asymptomatic preexisting conditions do not bar recovery; tortfeasor liable for full disability when superimposed injury occurs)
- Sleeth v. Louvar, 659 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa 2003) (no apportionment where no evidence of pre-accident disability)