Jackson, C. v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, Jackson, C. v. Consolidated Rail Corporation No. 3735 EDA 2015

Background

On March 28, 2011, Robert A. Jackson, a Conrail foreman, experienced chest symptoms at work after lifting a jackhammer; coworkers offered immediate local medical care which he repeatedly refused.
Jackson elected to be driven home and then, after speaking with his wife, went to an emergency room nearer his home where he was diagnosed with a myocardial infarction and later underwent surgery.
Jackson had a history of cardiac disease (including prior angioplasty) and smoked; he did not disclose this history on his Conrail application. He died in 2014 of congestive heart failure with onset traced to the cardiac event eight years earlier.
Appellant (personal representative) sued Conrail under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging Conrail negligently failed to provide timely emergency medical care (e.g., call 911 or take him to the closest hospital), which aggravated his injuries.
At trial the jury returned a defense verdict; the trial court denied post-trial motions. Appellant appealed, arguing (1) defense counsel and the jury ignored a supposed trial-court ruling/instruction that Conrail had an affirmative, nondelegable duty to provide timely medical assistance, and (2) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding there was no such legal ruling by the trial court, the jury instructions were proper, Appellant waived several arguments, and the evidence supported the jury’s verdict.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Conrail have an affirmative, nondelegable duty under FELA to provide timely medical assistance (based on special circumstances) and did the court instruct/decide this as a matter of law?	Jackson contends the trial court ruled Conrail had such a duty and that defense counsel and the jury disregarded that ruling/instruction.	Conrail maintained no such dispositive ruling was made; the issue of medical-assistance duty was for the jury to decide based on evidence (and plaintiff refused offers of care).	The court held the trial court did not rule as a matter of law that Conrail had a plaintiff-specific duty to provide involuntary medical care; the instruction left negligence and causation to the jury.
Did defense counsel improperly ignore or contradict the court’s instructions regarding duty of care?	Counsel asserts defense counsel disregarded the court’s supposed ruling and instructions.	Defense argued counsel appropriately summarized law and did not contradict any dispositive ruling; no objection was made at trial.	Waived (no trial objection) and without merit; defense argument was consistent with the court’s charge.
Did the jury disregard instructions and thus require a new trial?	Plaintiff argues jury ignored the trial court’s instruction that Conrail had a duty to provide timely medical assistance.	Defendant says the jury received full, proper instructions and resolved factual disputes (including plaintiff’s refusal of care).	The court found no persuasive support that jury disregarded instructions; charge was proper in whole; no new trial.
Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence such that a new trial is required?	Plaintiff argues the evidence showed Conrail employees knew or should have known Jackson was having a heart attack and failed to act.	Defendant emphasizes repeated refusals by Jackson of local treatment and that employees are not medical diagnosticians empowered to override an employee’s refusal.	Waived in briefing and, on the merits, the court held the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence; jury could credit Jackson’s refusals and conclude Conrail was not negligent.

Key Cases Cited

Stewart v. Motts, 654 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1995) (standard for reviewing jury charge error and abuse of discretion)
Boutte v. Seitchik, 719 A.2d 319 (Pa. Super. 1998) (review scope for jury instructions)
Vattimo v. Eaborn Truck Serv., Inc., 777 A.2d 1163 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard for appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence claim)
Rose v. Annabi, 934 A.2d 743 (Pa. Super. 2007) (factfinder credibility and weight are for the jury)
Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Lines, Inc., 287 U.S. 367 (1932) (Seamen’s Act case historically invoked regarding maintenance/cure and special circumstances under analogous FELA principles)
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (discussion of statutory preemption and related limits on older doctrines)