503 S.W.3d 213
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Larsen (railroad employee, union member) sued Union Pacific under FELA for injuries from a fall from a ladder on a track crane; jury returned a $3.2M verdict for Larsen.
- During voir dire, counsel asked whether anyone was a member of a labor union; Juror LS did not raise his hand and was seated on the 12-person jury that decided the case.
- After trial, Union Pacific retained Dr. David Giles, who interviewed jurors; Giles reported that Juror LS said he was "a union guy," "had my vote right off," and was an informal deliberation leader.
- Union Pacific filed a Rule 78.08 motion alleging juror nondisclosure and sought a new trial; an evidentiary hearing was held where Juror LS admitted union membership but testified he was distracted and possibly stayed silent to avoid being selected; he denied the statements Giles reported.
- The trial court credited Giles, found Juror LS intentionally withheld his union membership, found prejudice presumed from intentional nondisclosure, and granted Union Pacific a new trial; the court also denied Union Pacific’s JNOV and directed verdict motions on FELA negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Larsen's Argument | Union Pacific's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire question about union membership was sufficiently clear and Juror LS intentionally failed to disclose his union membership | Larsen: question unclear, LS may have tried to respond, prevented from adducing LS’s full testimony about understanding | Union Pacific: question was direct; LS sat silent though aware of union membership; silence to an unequivocal question supports intentional nondisclosure | Court: question was clear; LS’s silence and his own hearing testimony support intentional nondisclosure; presumption of prejudice applies; new trial affirmed |
| Timeliness of raising juror nondisclosure / Rule 78.08 plain-error review | Larsen: Union Pacific delayed and should have discovered nondisclosure before the 30-day new-trial deadline; plain-error relief encourages post-trial "witch hunts" | Union Pacific: did not learn of nondisclosure until juror interview; moved promptly after discovery and sought Rule 78.08 relief | Court: credited Union Pacific’s timeline and exercised Rule 78.08 to avoid manifest injustice; no abuse of discretion |
| Credibility of Dr. Giles’ testimony (used to prove nondisclosure) | Larsen: Giles’ statements inconsistent and self-contradictory; court erred by crediting him over Juror LS | Union Pacific: Giles’ testimony about LS’s statements was consistent and reliable | Court: defers to trial court credibility findings; no abuse of discretion in crediting Giles and discrediting Juror LS |
| Prejudice from nondisclosure (was union membership material to fairness) | Larsen: LS’s union membership had little bearing on case and did not affect juror qualification; no prejudice | Union Pacific: juror’s own reported statements show union identity influenced deliberations ("had my vote right off") | Court: intentional nondisclosure presumes prejudice; credibility findings supply additional support that membership influenced verdict; new trial appropriate |
| Cross-appeal: Whether Larsen made a submissible FELA case (notice of crane defect) | Union Pacific: Larsen failed to show actual or constructive notice of dangerous ladder spacing; verdict should be JNOV'd | Larsen: presented expert showing inconsistent rung spacing on a 40-year-old crane and testimony supporting notice/constructive knowledge | Court: evidence (expert on ladder standards, photos, age of equipment) was sufficient for jury; denial of JNOV and directed verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Precision Elec., Inc. v. Ex-Amish Specialties, Inc., 400 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion on new-trial rulings)
- J.T. ex rel. Taylor v. Anbari, 442 S.W.3d 49 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (two-step test for juror nondisclosure: clarity of question and intentionality)
- Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc 2013) (definition of intentional nondisclosure elements)
- State v. Ess, 453 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. banc 2015) (unequivocal question and venireperson’s duty to disclose)
- Spalding v. Steward Title Guaranty Company, 463 S.W.3d 770 (Mo. banc 2015) (standard for reviewing JNOV/directed verdict)
- Hertzler v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 720 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986) (FELA: minimal evidence needed to submit negligence to jury)
- Travis v. Stone, 66 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2002) (jurors’ post-verdict minimizations carry little weight)