John Giza v. Bnsf Railway Company
843 N.W.2d 713
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Plaintiff John Giza, a long‑time BNSF conductor born in 1950, suffered a 2009 knee injury at age 58–59 and could no longer perform the physical duties of his job.
- Giza sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA); BNSF conceded liability and contested damages only.
- Giza testified he planned to retire at age 66 and his expert computed lost earnings (~$755,000) based on that retirement age.
- Giza had prior knowledge he was eligible to retire at age 60 with full railroad pension benefits and had checked BNSF’s website pre‑accident.
- BNSF sought to introduce statistical/actuarial evidence showing railroad employees with ≥30 years’ service commonly retire around age 60, but the district court excluded that evidence under its reading of the federal collateral‑source principle (Eichel).
- The jury awarded $1.25 million; the Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to damages because exclusion of the retirement‑age statistics was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of statistical evidence of typical retirement age | Exclude statistics as effectively showing retirement benefits and thus barred by Eichel/collateral source concerns | Admit statistics to rebut plaintiff's self‑serving retirement age; statistics are relevant to work‑life expectancy and do not disclose benefit amounts | Court held statistics on typical retirement age are admissible so long as they do not directly/indirectly disclose retirement benefit amounts |
| Admissibility of evidence that plaintiff was eligible to retire at age 60 or had checked benefits online | Exclude evidence of eligibility/benefit inquiries as collateral source evidence likely to prejudice jury | Introduce eligibility and website inquiry to impeach plaintiff’s claim he intended to work to age 66 | Court allowed the limited proposition that plaintiff was eligible to retire at 60 is at least probative, but here the ruling focused on reversing exclusion of statistics; benefit amount evidence remains barred by Eichel |
| Prejudicial argument (“repentance”) in closing requiring mistrial | Plaintiff denies argument was improper or prejudicial | Defense sought mistrial for improper argument invoking repentance and sympathy | Court declined to find reversible error on this point and did not grant mistrial; remand only for exclusion of statistical‑evidence error |
| Sufficiency of jury instructions (proposed Instruction 36 re burden on causation/damages) | Proposed instruction was necessary to clarify plaintiff’s burden on damages | Court’s given instructions (Eighth Circuit FELA template and mitigation instruction) adequately conveyed burden of proof | Court held refusal to give proposed instruction was not reversible error; instructions as a whole were sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Eichel v. New York Central R.R., 375 U.S. 253 (1963) (Supreme Court excluded evidence of Railroad Retirement Act disability payments under collateral‑source concerns)
- Snipes v. Chicago, Cent. & Pac. R.R., 484 N.W.2d 162 (Iowa 1992) (applying Eichel and barring RRA disability payments evidence in FELA case)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts, 61 A.3d 767 (Md. 2013) (distinguishing retirement‑benefits evidence from admissible industry statistics on average retirement age)
- Griesser v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 761 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (refused to admit retirement benefit eligibility evidence but suggested cross‑examination on common retirement age might be permitted)
- Madore v. Ingram Tank Ships, Inc., 732 F.2d 475 (5th Cir. 1984) (Jones Act precedent recognizing work‑life expectancy tables as appropriate evidence for future wage loss)