Michael Waller v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company

Summary

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, reviewed a Federal Employers’ Liability Act action arising from Michael Waller’s workplace injury at Kansas City Southern Railway Company. The court held that review of the denial of summary judgment was improper after a full trial, found evidentiary support for the jury’s negligence findings, and addressed whether violation of an incorporated ASME crane-safety standard barred comparative negligence. It amended the trial court’s judgment to reduce Waller’s $5,380,665.06 award by his 20% comparative fault and affirmed the judgment as amended.

Holdings

1. After a full trial on the merits, denial of a motion for summary judgment is not reviewed under the pretrial de novo summary-judgment standard; issues raised by the motion are considered in light of the full trial record and the standards applicable to the issues tried.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that KCS was negligent and that its negligence played a part in causing Waller's injuries; there was not a complete absence of probative facts supporting the verdict.
3. The trial court erred by entering judgment that did not correspond to the jury's verdict. Because negligence per se was not submitted to the jury and the jury was instructed to apply comparative fault, the judgment had to reduce Waller's damages by the 20% fault allocated to him.
4. The jury's allocation of 20% fault to Waller was not manifestly erroneous.
5. The jury's $3.94 million general-damages award was not an abuse of its vast discretion.
6. The award of future medical expenses was not manifestly erroneous because it fell within the range of evidence presented to the jury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court could review KCS's denial of partial summary judgment after a full trial on the merits.
2. Whether the trial evidence provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find KCS negligent under FELA.
3. Whether the trial court erred by entering judgment for the full jury award rather than reducing it by Waller's 20% comparative fault.
4. Whether the jury's allocation of only 20% fault to Waller was manifestly erroneous.
5. Whether the jury abused its discretion by awarding $3.94 million in general damages.
6. Whether the jury's award of future medical expenses improperly included costs for procedures Waller had declined.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded