477 F.Supp.3d 65
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- On Oct. 2, 2013 Domingo Ojeda, an MTA ESU officer, chased a fleeing arrestee, felt a "pop" in his left Achilles/calf, underwent surgery and never returned to full-duty police work.
- Ojeda sued the MTA under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligent dispatch/back-up, improper vehicle/equipment, and a partner leaving him alone.
- Jury trial (Nov. 12–15, 2019): jury found Plaintiff 80% at fault, MTA 20% at fault, and awarded $2,650,000 (broken down for past/future lost earnings and past/future pain and suffering); judgment later entered in reduced totaled amount of $530,000 per comparative fault calculation.
- MTA moved post-trial under Rules 50(b), 59, 59(e)/60(b) for JMOL, new trial, and remittitur; also sought a set-off hearing for wages/medical payments and a stay under Rule 62(b).
- Court denied JMOL, denied new trial, denied remittitur; granted a limited opportunity for MTA to submit evidence on whether wage payments were non-collateral (set-off), denied set-off for medical payments as moot, and granted a stay of execution pending resolution of collateral-source/set-off issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove MTA negligence under FELA | Expert not required; plaintiff's lay testimony and treating physician sufficed under FELA's relaxed standard | Expert testimony required because police operational standards and resource allocation are beyond jurors' ken | Court: No expert required; evidence (including plaintiff's testimony) was sufficient; denied Rule 50(b) JMOL |
| Applicability of governmental-function immunity in FELA | Plaintiff: immunity not applicable to defeat FELA claim | MTA: discretionary policing decisions (personnel, equipment, officer conduct) immunize it | Court: governmental immunity not established as a defense under these facts in FELA; denied JMOL on this basis |
| New trial based on admission of plaintiff's "disabled" status | Testimony of MTA designating plaintiff disabled was relevant to permanency and damages | Admission was misleading and prejudicial; warrants new trial | Court: admitted testimony cured by limiting/curative jury instructions; no new trial |
| New trial based on plaintiff counsel misconduct in summation | Counsel's conduct not prejudicial after court warnings and instructions | Counsel's repeated misconduct, juror singling-out, legal misstatements prejudiced MTA | Court: warnings and curative instructions were sufficient; no miscarriage of justice; denied new trial |
| Remittitur: future lost wages (beyond termination) and post-tax reduction | Future lost wages permitted because claim is injury-based; jury instructed to exclude termination effects; tax deductions require evidence, which MTA failed to present | Future lost wages improper past termination; jury should have reduced awards by tax percentage (MTA proposes 28%) | Court: future lost wages were properly compensable; no post-trial tax reduction absent evidentiary basis; denied remittitur on these grounds |
| Set-off for wages/medical payments and stay of execution | MTA seeks set-off for wages ~ $71,311.24 and medical payments ~ $18,546.29 paid under collective bargaining agreement; requests hearing and stay | Plaintiff: medical payments not awarded by jury; wage payments likely collateral-source under CBA and not set-offable under 45 U.S.C. § 55 | Court: denied hearing on medical payments as moot; directed MTA to file evidence within 14 days to show payments were not collateral-source; stay of execution granted pending resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011) (FELA liability if employer negligence played any part in injury)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (standard for JMOL review; deference to jury and no credibility reweighing)
- Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Development Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) (Rule 50(b) limited to grounds raised in Rule 50(a))
- Cross v. New York City Transit Authority, 417 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2005) (JMOL review requires drawing all reasonable inferences for nonmoving party)
- Williams v. Long Island R.R., 196 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1999) (FELA imposes a relaxed negligence/causation standard)
- Syverson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 19 F.3d 824 (2d Cir. 1994) (FELA cases should not be dismissed unless no reasonable basis for jury to find for plaintiff)
- Nelson v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R., 235 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2000) (lower quantum of evidence suffices in FELA actions)
- Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998) (standards for remittitur and when verdicts are "intrinsically excessive")
- Fanetti v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., 678 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1982) (defendant must produce evidence of future taxes for jury or court to reduce future wage award)
- Folkestad v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 813 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1987) (collective bargaining language can determine whether employer payments are set-offable or constitute collateral source)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (jurors presumed to follow limiting/curative instructions)
- Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (new trial for evidentiary error requires clear prejudice to outcome)