Jacobs v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad
806 N.W.2d 209
| S.D. | 2011Background
- Jacobs, a DM&E rail-car mechanic, was injured January 7, 2007 in Huron, SD after slipping on snow/ice in the rail yard; he wore ice cleats but still fell, injuring elbow and shoulder, with permanent lifting restrictions.
- Jacobs sued under FELA alleging DM&E’s negligence caused the injury; a jury awarded $300,000 to Jacobs.
- DM&E moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for a new trial; the trial court denied both and ordered interest from verdict; the court also granted a wage-continuation set-off of $16,086.06.
- DM&E challenged the admission of drainage-related photographs and testimony as evidence of drainage problems and foreseeability; Jacobs cross-appealed on the set-off amount.
- On appeal, the court held (a) drainage evidence admissible and not abusively prejudicial; (b) foreseeability instructions proper under McBride; (c) preservation issue forecloses new-trial on earnings-capacity instruction; (d) prejudgment interest not applicable under FELA but post-judgment interest from verdict allowed; (e) set-off of wage-continuation benefits proper under 45 U.S.C. § 55.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drainage evidence was admissible and supports foreseeability | Jacobs argues drainage photos show DM&E knew of hazards and ice formation | DM&E claims evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial | Admissible; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether DM&E was entitled to JMOL on foreseeability | Foreseeability shown by evidence of ice risk and DM&E precautions | Foreseeability not reasonably inferred from the record | denial of JMOL affirmed; jury could find foreseeability |
| Whether the loss of earning capacity instruction was appropriate and preserved | jury could award future earnings loss under current standards | Objections not preserved; new instruction not appropriate on remand | Issue waived for lack of preservation; no new-trial ruling on remand |
| Whether prejudgment interest was proper | FELA prohibits prejudgment interest; only post-judgment interest | South Dakota law allows interest from verdict to judgment | Prejudgment interest not required; post-judgment interest from verdict allowed under SDCL 15-16-3 |
| Whether set-off of wage-continuation benefits was proper | Set-off may have reduced jury award improperly | FELA § 55 allows set-off for amounts paid or contributed to benefits | Set-off affirmed under 45 U.S.C. § 55 |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) (any part standard for FELA proximate cause)
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108 (1963) (foreseeability and duty under FELA)
- McBride v. CSX Transp., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2630 (2011) (clarified FELA proximate-cause focus and foreseeability)
- Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (1957) (illustrated the historical purpose of FELA proximate cause)
- Monessen S.W.R. Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330 (1988) (prejudgment vs post-judgment interests under FELA)
- La. & Ark. Ry. Co. v. Pratt, 142 F.2d 847 (1944) (definitions of prejudgment interest scope)