McLaughlin v. BNSF Railway Co.
2012 COA 92
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- MeLaughlin, employed by BNSF Railway Co., injured when a locomotive handbrake allegedly malfunctioned.
- Plaintiff sues under FELA and for strict liability under the Locomotive Inspection Act and Safety Appliance Act.
- Jury awards $1,830,000 in damages in favor of MeLaughlin after trial.
- Railroad appeals on evidentiary issues and jury instructions regarding eggshell skull and aggravation, and on lost wages relief related to RRA benefits.
- Evidence shows preexisting back conditions and a congenital hernia, which were largely asymptomatic before the incident, and that the injury may have aggravated these conditions.
- District court gave both eggshell and aggravation instructions; the eggshell instruction was supported by evidence, the aggravation instruction was not; both practices were ultimately deemed harmless to the railroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eggshell skull and aggravation instructions interplay | MeLaughlin argues both instructions appropriate given evidence. | MeLaughlin’s argument supports apportionment; railroad contends only one applicable. | Eggshell appropriate; aggravation not supported by evidence; errors harmless. |
| Admission of post-incident transcript | Transcript admissible as prior consistent statement to rebut fabrication. | Transcript should be excluded as hearsay. | Admissible; not abuse of discretion; context for cross-examination. |
| RRA disability benefits and lost wages | RRA benefits are collateral and cannot offset FELA damages. | Benefits may offset damages. | RRA benefits are collateral; cannot offset or bar lost wages under FELA. |
| Special verdict form on apportionment | Verbatim instruction on apportionment requested. | Special verdict form would clarify apportionment. | District court did not abuse in denying; harmless error. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Dickerson, 470 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1985) (substantive and procedural rules in FELA actions; damages measure explained by federal law)
- Monessen S. Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330 (U.S. 1988) (federal standard for damages and causation in rail cases)
- Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1980) (damages under FELA; guidance on causation and damages)
- Waits v. United Fire & Casualty Co., 572 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 1997) (when to give eggshell vs aggravation instructions; need for jury guidance)
- Sauer v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 106 F.3d 1490 (10th Cir.1996) (discussion of eggshell vs aggravation; dicta on relation of the two doctrines)
- Eichel v. New York Central Railroad Co., 375 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1963) (collateral source rule; RRA benefits as collateral source in FELA actions)
- Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d 380 (4th Cir.2010) (collateral source rule in modern practice; RRA benefits cannot offset damages)