Dale v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, 520 Pa. 96

552 A.2d 1037 (Pa. 1989) · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 24, 1989

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered an employee's Federal Employers' Liability Act claim alleging disability from occupational asbestos exposure. The court held that foreseeability of the injury should have been submitted to the jury, that expert testimony concerning contemporaneous medical and scientific knowledge was relevant, and that damages should be limited to injuries attributable to the railroad's negligence. The court also held that Pennsylvania delay damages under Pa. R. Civ. P. 238 were unavailable in FELA actions and remanded for a new trial.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Flaherty, Justice; Nix, C.J.; Larsen, J.; Flaherty, J.; McDermott, J.; Zappala, J.; Papadakos, J.; Stout, J.
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Decision date
January 24, 1989
Procedural posture
The railroad appealed from a Superior Court decision affirming the trial court's rulings on foreseeability and liability instructions, while vacating and remanding the judgment for reconsideration of delay damages. After the trial court reimposed the delay damages, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted a transfer of the railroad's appeal.
Standard of review
Whether an issue may be removed from the jury depends on whether reasonable minds can disagree; a factual or mixed issue may be decided as a matter of law only when the evidence permits but one reasonable conclusion. The court also reviewed the legal correctness of the jury instructions and the applicability of Pennsylvania delay-damages procedure to an FELA action.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Parties
The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Howard F. Dale
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

negligencepersonal injurystandard of caredamagesappellate procedure

Practice areas

Federal Employers' Liability Actrailroad employee injuryasbestos exposurenegligencedamages and prejudgment interest

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred by removing foreseeability from the jury and holding as a matter of law that Dale's asbestos-related injury was foreseeable.
  2. Whether expert testimony concerning the state of medical and scientific knowledge during Dale's exposure was relevant and should have been submitted to the jury.
  3. Whether an FELA railroad is liable for all damages associated with an employee's injury when railroad negligence caused only part of the injury, or only for damages attributable to its negligence.
  4. Whether Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 delay damages may be awarded in an FELA action.

Holdings

  1. The trial court erred by deciding foreseeability as a matter of law because reasonable minds could disagree about whether the railroad knew or should have known that asbestos exposure in Dale's railroad work was hazardous.
  2. Expert testimony concerning the state of medical and scientific knowledge during Dale's exposure was relevant to foreseeability and had to be considered by the jury at retrial.
  3. When an employee's injury is caused partly by the railroad's negligence and partly by other causes, the railroad is liable only for damages attributable to its negligence.
  4. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 delay damages may not be awarded in an FELA action because federal law precludes prejudgment interest in such actions.

Key quotations

The court may remove an issue from the jury’s determination, however, only if reasonable minds cannot disagree on the propriety of the court’s resolution of the issue. (520 Pa. at 104)
Thus, we hold that an FELA employer whose employee has been injured partially by the employer’s negligence and partially by other causes, whether those other causes relate to a pre-existing condition or to a concurrent, contemporary cause arising from the circumstances of the injury, must pay damages only for those injuries attributable to its negligence. (520 Pa. at 106)
Therefore, Rule 238 prejudgment interest damages may not be applied in FELA actions brought in the courts of this Commonwealth. (520 Pa. at 108)

Factual background

Howard F. Dale worked as a pipefitter for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad from 1944 to 1981 and removed asbestos-impregnated insulation from steam locomotives from 1945 through 1955. When he retired, he was totally disabled and had been diagnosed with asthma and asbestosis. Dale presented evidence of substantial asbestos exposure, medical causation, historical medical literature regarding asbestos hazards, and railroad-industry records discussing dust-related diseases. The railroad presented contrary expert testimony that the hazards were not reasonably known during the relevant period and that Dale's condition resulted from preexisting lung disease rather than asbestosis.

Procedural history

Dale obtained a jury verdict of $544,245 against the railroad under FELA, and the trial court added $84,522.02 in delay damages under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238. The Superior Court affirmed the foreseeability and liability rulings but vacated the judgment and remanded for reconsideration of delay damages. The trial court reimposed the same delay damages, and the Supreme Court transferred the railroad's appeal. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Remand instructions

Remand for a new trial. At retrial, foreseeability must be submitted to the jury, relevant expert testimony concerning the historical state of medical and scientific knowledge must be considered, and damages must be limited to injuries attributable to the railroad's negligence. Rule 238 delay damages may not be awarded in the FELA action.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Pennsylvania Supreme Court