Case Name: James G. Heverly v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Date Decided: September 8, 2009
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three
Judge: Judge Norton, Judge Hoff, Judge Mooney
Citation: 2009 WL 2870514 (Mo.App.E.D.)

Background:

Union Pacific Railroad Company (“UP”) appealed from the judgment on a jury verdict awarding James G.Heverly (“Heverly”) damages in the amount of $1.4 million based on his negligence claim against UP under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. (“FELA”)

Issue:
Did the Court uphold the jury verdict, awarding Heverly $1.4 million, based upon Heverly’s negligence claim under FELA?

Held:
UP argued that the trial court erred in denying UP’s (1) Motion for New Trial because an attorney intentionally failed to disclose bias against corporations during voir dire as suggested on his website (2) Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict because Heverly failed to make a submissble case on the foreseeability element of his FELA claim and (3) Motion for New Trial because the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) precluded Heverly’s negligence claim under FELA for “improper ballast”.

The Court found defendant’s claim to be without merit. The Court found that Heverly made a submissible case on the foreseeability element of his FELA claim and that FELA was not precluded under the FRSA, governing track safety standards, including ballast requirements.

Comment:
Although this particular case does not extensively cover the opinion of the Court, it does illustrate a common FELA issue that is the conflict between the FRSA and FELA.

Steve Gordon
http://www.Gordon-Elias.com