Preview:

No.

13097

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F
1977

HELEN TORCHIA, i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s a personal representative, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

BURLINGTON NORTHERN, a corporation,

INC.

Defendant and Respondent and Cross A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal-from:

D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. P a u l G. H a t f i e l d , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Gough, Booth, Shanahan and J o h n s o n , H e l e n a , Montana C o r d e l l Johnson a r g u e d , Helena, Montana F o r Respondent : Hoyt and Bottomly, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana John C . Hoyt a r g u e d and R i c h a r d V. Bottomly a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana

Submitted:

June 6 ,

I977

Filed:

'_?I"

I I

*'+#

Em &, .

#

;

f
~ ' ~

:

~ .

~

i

~

-

~

-

Clerk

Hon. M. James S o r t e , D i s t r i c t Judge, d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court: This i s a wrongful death a c t i o n f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Cascade County, under t h e Federal ~ m p l o y e r s ' L i a b i l i t y Act, 45 U.S.C. $ 5 1 e t u s e q . (FELA). P l a i n t i f f Helen Torchia a s personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e e s t a t e of decedent Gennaro Torchia, and on behalf of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , sued defendant Burlington Northern, I n c . f o r damages occasioned by t h e death of h e r husband Gennaro Torchia. Gennaro Torchia, a Burlington Northern fireman, was k i l l e d i n a head-on c o l l i s i o n between two r a i l r o a d t r a i n s . I n her

complaint p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d negligence under t h e FELA and prayed f o r compensatory damages. She a l s o , i n d i v i d u a l l y and

a s personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e minor c h i l d r e n , a l l e g e d w i l l f u l and wanton conduct and prayed f o r p u n i t i v e damages. I n i t s amended answer, defendant admitted 1 i a b i l i t y " f o r n e g l i gence under t h e FELA. The t r i a l c o u r t denied defendant's

motion t o s t r i k e those a l l e g a t i o n s from t h e complaint which had reference t o p u n i t i v e damages. The case was t r i e d t o a jury on t h e i s s u e s of compensatory damages and conduct which would form t h e b a s i s f o r an award of p u n i t i v e damages. f o r compensatory The jury returned a v e r d i c t f o r p l a i n t i f f The

damages only, i n t h e amount of $580,000.

jury found t h e f a c t s d i d n o t j u s t i f y an award of p u n i t i v e damages. Defendant appeals from t h e judgment entered on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . P l a i n t i f f crossappeals from an order denying h e r motion f o r a new t r i a l on t h e i s s u e of p u n i t i v e damages. The f a c t s of t h i s c a r e a r e :
A t approximately 11:45 p.m.

on May 11, 1971, a t a p o i n t

near S h e f f e l s on t h e Burlington Northern l i n e between Great F a l l s

and Havre, t h e r e was a head-on c o l l i s i o n between two t r a i n s . Four of defendant's employees were k i l l e d and s e v e r a l o t h e r s injured. Torchia. The movement of t r a i n s between Great F a l l s and Havre i s c o n t r o l l e d out of t h e d i s p a t c h e r ' s o f f i c e i n Havre. Trains a r e One of those k i l l e d was p l a i n t i f f ' s husband, Gennaro

operated over t h i s segment of t h e t r a c k by t r a i n orders and clearances. track, The Havre t o Great F a l l s route consists of b u t one are significant i n

Thus, t h e orders and clearances

c o n t r o l l i n g t r a i n movements where a "meet" i s a n t i c i p a t e d between t r a i n s t r a v e l i n g i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s .
A d i s p a t c h e r i s s u e s various orders t o t h e operators a t

various s t a t i o n s on t h e l i n e .

The orders a r e communicated The o p e r a t o r

from the d i s p a t c h e r t o t h e operator by telephone. then copies t h e o r d e r s on t r a i n order forms.

The o r d e r s a r e

then read back t o t h e dispatcher t o i n s u r e t h e copied o r d e r s are correct. I t i s a l s o the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e d i s p a t c h e r t o i s s u e clearances which a r e communicated t o and copied by t h e operator i n t h e same manner a s a r e t r a i n orders.
A t r a i n i s n o t allowed

t o move over a t r a c k which i s c o n t r o l l e d by t r a i n orders and clearances unless a proper clearance i s issued f o r t h e t r a i n movement. Typically, orders and clearances a r e not issued u n t i l t h e

t r a i n has been "called", t h a t i s , assembled and ready f o r departure. Generally, t h e conductor i n charge of t h e t r a i n and When

crew picks up t h e orders and clearances from t h e operator.

it becomes necessary t o i s s u e a second order and clearance on a

given t r a i n movement, t h e f i r s t orders and clearance a r e taken
up and destroyed.

-3-

I n 1971 i t was and had been f o r many years t h e p r a c t i c e i n Havre f o r t h e operator t o place copies of t h e completed clearances and orders on t h e t r a i n r e g i s t e r desk i n t h e Havre Relay Office. There was no procedure whereby i t could be d e t e r -

mined when t h e orders were a c t u a l l y picked up by t h e conductor. I n t h i s case Dispatcher Newel1 was on s h i f t from 7:30 a.m. u n t i l 3:30 p.m. on May 11, 1971. ance a t 3:08 p.m. He issued orders and a c l e a r -

f o r t h e Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n , designated Newel1 expected t h e t r a i n would be c a l l e d

a s "Extra 2013 West." momentarily.

Operator Wirtzberger then placed the clearance and
A t t h a t time Newel1 was

orders on t h e t r a i n r e g i s t e r desk.

unaware a t r a i n was being assembled i n Great F a l l s d e s t i n e d f o r Havre, a l s o t o leave on May 11. Newel1 turned over h i s dispatching d i s t r i c t t o Dispatcher McMaster a t 3:30 p.m. Pursuant t o t h e then o p e r a t i v e "staggered

s h i f t " work system, McMaster who was on duty dispatching another district was , i n a d d i t i o n , given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r Newell's Newel1 explained t o McMaster t h a t he The clearance i s There

d i s t r i c t u n t i l 4:30 p.m.

had c l e a r e d t h e Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n .

r e f l e c t e d i n t h e clearance record kept by t h e d i s p a t c h e r .

was no dispatching a c t i v i t y during t h e hour McMaster had responsib i l i t y f o r t h e d i s t r i c t so no f u r t h e r e n t r i e s were made i n t h e d i s p a t c h e r ' s book.
A t t h e end of h i s s h i f t McMaster merely

i n i t i a l e d t h e record book and passed it on t o Dispatcher Magnuson. There i s a d i s p u t e i n t h e evidence a s t o whether McMaster v e r b a l l y informed Magnuson t h e Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n was c l e a r e d when t h e dispatching d i s t r i c t was turned over t o him. McMaster t e s t i f i e d he informed Magnuson of t h e clearance. son t e s t i f i e d no such statements were made. Magnu-

However, t h e r e i s no

d i s p u t e t h e records McMaster turned over t o Magnuson c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h e t r a i n had been c l e a r e d a t 3:08 p.m. by Newell. Magnuson, during h i s dispatching s h i f t , was informed t h a t a t r a i n would soon be leaving Great F a l l s bound f o r Havre. arrange f o r a "meet" between t h e r e s p e c t i v e To

t r a i n s whereby one

would take a s i d e t r a c k a s t h e o t h e r passed by, Magnuson issued a second o r d e r and clearance a t 8:18 p.m. The second order and

clearance were communicated t o Operator P o r t e r , who prepared them and placed them on t h e t r a i n r e g i s t e r desk. Sometime between t h e time Operator Wirtzberger placed t h e f i r s t order and clearance on t h e t r a i n r e g i s t e r desk and t h e time t h e second order and clearance were placed on t h e desk, Conductor Freeburg, conductor f o r "Extra 2013 West", came i n t o t h e Havre Relay O f f i c e and picked up t h e f i r s t o r d e r s and c l e a r ance. He was not seen picking up t h e o r d e r s and clearance by any

d i s p a t c h e r o r operator. P l a i n t i f f ' s husband, Gennaro Torchia, was a member of t h e crew of t h e Great F a l l s t o Havre t r a i n . Under t h e second o r d e r s

issued t o t h a t t r a i n , b u t unknown t o Conductor-Freeburg of "Extra 2013 West" and i t s crew, i t was t o proceed t o Portage: where a "meet" would take place. The Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n was t o

wait a t Portage t o permit t h e Great F a l l s t o Havre t r a i n t o take the siding. The Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n passed t h e s i d i n g a t Portage without stopping and, s h o r t l y beyond S h e f f e l s , t h e head-on c o l l i s i o n between t h e two t r a i n s occurred. instantly. Gennaro Torchia was k i l l e d

A t t h e time of h i s death he was 49 years of age.

Additional p e r t i n e n t f a c t s w i l l appear l a t e r i n t h i s opinion.

Defendant r a i s e s numerous p o i n t s of e r r o r on appeal. t h i s opinion we w i l l d i s c u s s e i g h t determinative i s s u e s :

For

1. Whether p u n i t i v e damages a r e recoverable i n an a c t i o n
under t h e FELA?

2.

Whether t h e t v e r d i c t should be s e t a s i d e a s being excessive

and based on passion o r p r e j u d i c e ?

3.

Whether t h e v o i r d i r e examination by counsel f o r

p l a i n t i f f was improper?

4.

Whether admission of evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o f u t u r e

r a i l r o a d retirement b e n e f i t s was e r r o r ?

5.

Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n admitting c e r t a i n t e s t i -

mony given by p l a i n t i f f ' s expert witness i n t h e a r e a of economics? 6. Whether a p o t e n t i a l witness f o r defendant, whose name

was n o t listed on t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r , should have been permitted to testify?

7.

Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n s e l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n s

and form of v e r d i c t ?
8.

Whether admission i n t o evidence of a p o r t i o n of t h e

Federal Railroad Administration Accident r e p o r t was p r e j u d i c i a l error? I s s u e 1. A major contention of defendant i s t h a t p u n i t i v e damages should n o t have been an i s s u e i n t h e c a s e , and evidence and proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t e d t h e r e t o should not have been permitted. Defendant a s s e r t s such i s s u e should have been removed Defendant a l l e g e s p u n i t i v e damages

upon i t s motion t o s t r i k e .

a r e n o t allowable under t h e FEU, and allowing p l a i n t i f f t o i n t r o duce proof n o t only of l i a b i l i t y , b u t a l s o on t h e question of p u n i t i v e damages was p r e j u d i c i a l and r e s u l t e d i n an excessive award a s a r e s u l t of passion and prejudice on t h e p a r t of t h e jury.

A s noted, defendant admitted i t s l i a b i l i t y f o r ordinary
negligence.
A t t h e o u t s e t we r e j e c t defendant's theory t h a t upon

such an admission, p l a i n t i f f ' s case must be l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o t h e i s s u e of damages. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s case p l a i n t i f f

could prove h e r case a s she wishes s u b j e c t , of course, t o t h e ordinary c o n t r o l and d i s c r e t i o n exercised by t h e t r i a l judge. Whether o r n o t evidence of p u n i t i v e damages&as a proper p l a c e i n an a c t i o n under t h e FELA, t h e jury here refused t o allow such damages t o p l a i n t i f f . I n view of t h e evidence pre-

sented by p l a i n t i f f and t h e r e s u l t reached by t h e j u r y , t h e presence of t h e element of p u n i t i v e damages d i d not p r e j u d i c e defendant i n t h i s case. S l i f e r v. Yorath, 52 Mont. 129, 155 Further,

P. 1113; Martin v. Corscadden, 34 Mont. 308, 86 P. 33.

t h e same reasoning a p p l i e s with reference t o t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r i n t h e giving of i n s t r u c t i o n s on w i l l f u l and wanton misconduct and o t h e r matters r e l a t i v e t o p u n i t i v e damages. The s a l i e n t

f a c t remains t h e jury refused t o award such damages and, i n f a c t , s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h e r e was no evidence of conduct which would form t h e b a s i s f o r p u n i t i v e damages. no p r e j u d i c e a s a r e s u l t . Defendant s u f f e r e d

H i l l v. Chappel Bros. of Montana, I n c . ,

93 Mont.92,

18 P.2d 1106. Was t h e jury v e r d i c t excessive and based upon

I s s u e 2.

passion and p r e j u d i c e ? Defendant a s s e r t s t h e r e must be s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record upon which t h e j u r y award can be p r e d i c a t e d , c i t i n g Montana cases. While t h e r e was more than s u b s t a n t i a l evidence

i n t h e record t o j u s t i f y t h e j u r y ' s award, n e v e r t h e l e s s t h i s i s n o t t h e a p p l i c a b l e standard under t h e Federal Employers' L i a b i l i t y Act. I n Resner v. The N.P.Railway, 161 Mont. 177, 505 P.2d 86

(1973), t h i s Court quoted t h e standard a s s e t out i n Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653, 66 S.Ct. 740, 744, 90 L ed 916, 923, a There t h e United S t a t e s

Federal Employers' L i a b i l i t y Act case. Supreme Court s a i d :

I t i s no answer t o say t h a t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t involved speculation and conjecture. Whenever f a c t s a r e i n d i s p u t e o r t h e evidence i s such t h a t f a i r minded men may draw d i f f e r e n t i n f e r e n c e s , a measure of s p e c u l a t i o n and conjecture i s required on t h e p a r t of those whose duty i t i s t o s e t t l e t h e d i s p u t e by choosing what seems t o them t o be t h e most reasonable inference. Only when t h e r e i s a complete absence of probative f a c t s t o support t h e conclusion reached does t h e r e i s an a r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r appear. But where e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s f o r t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , t h e jury i s f r e e t o d i s c a r d o r d i s b e l i e v e whatever f a c t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t with i t s conclusions. And t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s function i s exhausted when t h a t e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s becomes apparent, i t being immaterial t h a t t h e c o u r t might draw a c o n t r a r y inference o r f e e l t h a t ano t h e r conclusion i s more reasonable. ' (Emphasis added. )" 161 Mont. 183.

I1 I

***

P l a i n t i f f ' s evidence of damages was almost e n t i r e l y uncontradicted. Through t h e testimony of v a r i o u s witnesses, p l a i n t i f f

e l i c i t e d f a c t s and f i g u r e s which, when p r o j e c t e d i n t o t h e f u t u r e and discounted t o p r e s e n t v a l u e , would reasonably support a v e r d i c t such a s was rendered i n t h i s case. The t r i a l judge agreed

t h e v e r d i c t was not u n j u s t and a new t r i a l was not granted t o defendant. W r e f u s e t o d i s t u r b t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e j u r y , e This i s s u e involves a l l e g e d improper v o i r d i r e Nothing

I s s u e 3.

examination of prospective j u r o r s by counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f .

a t a l l appears i n t h e record suggestive of t h e statements a t t r i b u t e d t o counsel. The law i s c l e a r t h a t unless t h e r e i s a record of Kipp

t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r , t h i s Court w i l l not consider t h e matter.

v. Willoughby, 1 6 1 Mont. 432, 506 P.2d 1365; Nissen v. Western Construction Equipment Co., 133 Mont. 143, 320 P.2d 997, argument i n t h i s regard i s without merit. Defendant's

I s s u e 4.

Did t h e t r i a l court e r r i n allowing t h e testimony

of p l a i n t i f f ' s w i t n e s s , J u d i t h Kirkness, an employee of t h e United S t a t e s Railroad Retirement Board, concerning retirement benefits? The core of defendant's argument i s t h a t t h e witness

was asked t o make c e r t a i n assumptions, while t h e f a c t s forming t h e b a s i s f o r such assumptions were n o t of record o r i n evidence. The record shows t h a t , a t some time i n advance of t r i a l , defense counsel v e r b a l l y s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e evidence t o be e l i c i t e d from witness Kirkness. i n a previous FELA a c t i o n . I n f a c t , he had so s t i p u l a t e d

However, immediately before t h e

i n s t a n t t r i a l , defense counsel informed counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f Burlington Northern had assigned a Minnesota a t t o r n e y t o d i r e c t t h e case f o r defendant and a s a r e s u l t t h e p r i o r s t i p u l a t i o n was no longer v a l i d . Kirkness a s a witness. He then suggested p l a i n t i f f c a l l Judy W note a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t such t a c t i c s e

on t h e p a r t of t h e new counsel a r e s t r o n g l y disapproved by t h i s Court. The proposed evidence and t h e procedure t o be employed i n developing it was discussed i n chambers and f u l l y considered by t h e t r i a l judge. The witness was t o determine t h e amount

of b e n e f i t s Gennaro Torchia would have been e n t i t l e d t o upon retirement from t h e r a i l r o a d . The f a c t o r s t o be considered

i n a r r i v i n g a t such a computation a r e t h e employee's age, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , l e n g t h of employment, r a t e of compensation, and length of m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e . These f a c t s p e r t a i n i n g t o Gennaro

Torchia, were s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n evidence and presented i n a c o r r e c t fashion t o t h e witness f o r h e r determination. The

r e s u l t i n g testimony was properly admitted a s i t was based upon evidence before t h e c o u r t . Graham v. Rolandson, 150 Mont. 270,

435 P.2d 263; Burns v. F i s h e r , 132 Mont. 26, 313 P.2d 1044.

I s s u e 5.

Defendant a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h e admission by t h e

t r i a l c o u r t of testimony of p l a i n t i f f ' s economic e x p e r t , D r . George P. H e l i k e r , on t h e i s s u e of economic l o s s s u f f e r e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e d e a t h of Gennaro Torchia.
I t i s argued t h e e x p e r t

opinions were s p e c u l a t i v e on f u t u r e i n f l a t i o n a r y t r e n d s , i n f o r e c a s t i n g l o s s of e a r n i n g s , i n f o r e c a s t i n g f u t u r e e a r n i n g s without c o n s i d e r i n g t h e impact of income t a x e s t h e r e o n , and i n f o r e c a s t i n g l o s s of f u t u r e Railroad Retirement B e n e f i t s . Proof of t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e of a f u t u r e economic l o s s i s n e c e s s a r i l y u n c e r t a i n t o a degree. Any d e t e r m i n a t i o n of f a c t o r s

such a s growth i n t h e s i z e of t h e t o t a l l a b o r f o r c e , o u t p u t p e r m a d h o u r , wage t r e n d s and i n f l a t i o n a r y p a t t e r n s i s a d m i t t e d l y grounded i n p r o b a b i l i t i e s . However, t h i s does n o t mean t h e Such l o s s e s a r e b e s t

amount of a f u t u r e l o s s i s n o t provable.

proved through employment of economic and s t a t i s t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e s , a p p l i e d t o t h e very f a c t o r s l i s t e d above, a s t h i s Court h a s recognized i n numerous p r i o r d e c i s i o n s . Where, a s h e r e , t h e

testimony of a s p e c i a l i s t p r e s e n t s a j u r y w i t h a reasonable b a s i s upon which t o e s t i m a t e , w i t h some degree of c e r t a i n t y , t h e probable f u t u r e l o s s e s occasioned by t h e d e a t h of decedent, such testimony should be admitted. Resner v. The N.P. Railway, See

s u p r a ; Krohmer v. Dahl, 145 Mont. 491, 402 P.2d 979.

Lavender v. Kurn, s u p r a , f o r a g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n of t r e n d s i n volving s p e c u l a t i o n and c o n j e c t u r e i n a s c e r t a i n i n g damages i n
FELA a c t i o n s .

Defendant was aware, p r e t r i a l , t h a t p l a i n t i f f intended t o

call D r . H e l i k e r t o t e s t i f y t o p r e c i s e l y t h o s e m a t t e r s defendant
now d i s p u t e s . The o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t e s t t h e accuracy of such

testimony, through i t s own e x p e r t testimony, was a v a i l a b l e t o defendant. However, it chose n o t t o c a l l an e x p e r t w i t n e s s on

these matters.

-

10

-

I s s u e 6.

Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n excluding t h e t e s t i -

mony of d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed w i t n e s s S. M. Smiland, w i t h r e s p e c t t o insurance b e n e f i t s , wages, damages, e t c . ? W emphasize h e r e t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y e and d i s c u s s i o n was had i n t h i s c a s e , d u r i n g which t h e i d e n t i t i e s of a l l w i t n e s s e s were d i s c l o s e d and l i s t e d i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r . However, t h e name of S.M. Smiland f i r s t appears following p l a i n t i f f ' s case-in-chief. There i s no record p l a i n t i f f knew

w i t n e s s Smiland, o r t h a t he was p r e s e n t i n Great F a l l s d u r i n g a p o r t i o n of t h e t r i a l . He was never introduced t o p l a i n t i f f

and p l a i n t i f f was a f f o r d e d no o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a l k t o Smiland b e f o r e h i s proposed testimony was t o begin. Under t h e circum-

s t a n c e s , i t was c e r t a i n l y w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge t o a l l o w o r d i s a l l o w t h e w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y . Mount Haggin Livestock Co., supra. I s s u e 7. T h i s i s s u e concerns i n s t r u c t i o n s given and r e f u s e d Sanders v.

by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 14 and No. 20 were o b j e c t e d t o by defendant on t h e grounds a decedent f a t h e r ' s comfort, prot e c t i o n , s o c i e t y , education and companionship a r e n o t proper elements o f damage r e c o v e r a b l e under t h e FELA. No. 14 provides i n p a r t : Instruction

"You may a l s o c o n s i d e r and award such sum a s you may determine r e p r e s e n t s t h e pecuniary v a l u e of any l o s s , i f any, s u s t a i n e d by t h e widow and t h e family by reason o f being deprived of Gennaro T o r c h i a ' s comfort, p r o t e c t i o n , s o c i e t y , e d u c a t i o n and companions h i p . I n c o n s i d e r i n g such pecuniary l o s s , you may c o n s i d e r t h e age and l i f e expectancy of t h e w i f e and family i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e age of t h e decedent, t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e deceased, whether i t was k i n d l y , a f f e c t i o n a t e , o r o t h e r w i s e , t h e degree of intimacy e x i s t i n g between t h e deceased and h i s f a m i l y , t h e i r s t a t i o n i n l i f e , and such o t h e r f a c t s shown by t h e evidence which may throw l i g h t upon such l o s s which t h e h e i r s reasonably might have expected t o r e c e i v e *'I from t h e deceased, had he l i v e d .

**

I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20 s t a t e s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t : "You have h e r e t o f o r e been i n s t r u c t e d on damages which may be allowed t o wife and family f o r t h e death of Gennaro Torchia. One of t h e elements of such damage i s t h e pecuniary value of t h e s o c i e t y , comfort, c a r e , companionship, p r o t e c t i o n and education t h e wife and family have l o s t by reason of h i s death. I f you f i n d from t h e evidence t h a t t h e deceased d i d provide s o c i e t y , comfort, c a r e , companionship, p r o t e c t i o n and education, which went t o t h e moral o r physical t r a i n i n g and well-being of t h e widow and family, t h i s l o s s i f it has ,pecuriiary o r . f i n a n c i a l v a l u e , may be measured and compensated. *'I

**

I t i s t r u e damages under t h e FELA a r e measured by and l i m i t e d t o t h e pecuniary l o s s sustained by t h e survivors a s a r e s u l t of t h e death of t h e employee. 277 U.S. 335, 48 S.Ct. Mellon v. Goodyear,

541, 72 L ed 906; Michigan C e n t r a l R. 59, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57 L ed 417.

Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S.

Recovery i s authorized only t o t h e e x t e n t t h e survivors a r e shown t o have been deprived of a reasonable expectation of f i n a n c i a l b e n e f i t s , a s s i s t a n c e o r support. supra; See Anno: 67 ALR2d 745,746. Mellon v. Goodyear,

However, t h e pecuniary value

a s s o c i a t e d with t h e l o s s of p a r e n t a l c a r e , guidance and education t h e decedent would expectably have given h i s minor c h i l d r e n , i s recoverable under t h e FELA. Holbrook, 235 U.S. 625, 35 S.Ct. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. 143, 59 L ed 392; Michigan

Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, supra. I n determining t h e e x t e n t of c o n t r i b u t i o n which i s reasonable t o be a n t i c i p a t e d by t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s , t h e j u r y may properly consider evidence t h e decedent was i n d u s t r i o u s , t h r i f t y , kind and f a i t h f u l t o h i s family. Allendorf v. Elgin,

J o l i e t & Eastern R. Co., 8 I11.2d 164, 133 N.~.2d 288, 79 A L R ~ ~ 241, c e r t . den. 352 U.S.833, 352 U.S. 937, 77 S.Ct.

77 S.Ct. 49, 1 L ed 2d 53, reh.den.

219, 1 L ed 2d 170.

Contained within t h e c o u r t ' s

i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 14 and No. 20

i s language having t h e e f f e c t of l i m i t i n g recovery t o t h e

pecuniary value of l o s s e s sustained.

F u r t h e r , t h e language

speaks t o l i m i t i n g l o s s e s t o Chose which t h e survivors reasonably might have expected t o receive from decedent, had he l i v e d . P l a i n t i f f ' s evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e x t e n t of t h e l o s s of p a r e n t a l c a r e , guidance and education was ample and uncontrad i c t e d , a s was t h e evidence demonstrating t h e decedent was i n d u s t r i o u s , t h r i f t y , kind and f a i t h f u l t o h i s family. Thus, while t h e r e may have been minor v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s from t h e accepted measure of damages i n FELA a c t i o n s , they cannot be s a i d t o have prejudiced t h e defendant. The

i n s t r u c t i o n s were n o t t o t a l l y confined t o an FELA death a c t i o n , t h e r e being v a r i a t i o n s b u t on those v a r i a t i o n s no evidence was adduced a t t r i a l . W f i n d no prejudice. e

Defendant a l s o o b j e c t s t o t h e giving of c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n No. 19, which provides: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t : "In considering t h e l o s s of c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e family from f u t u r e earnings of decedent you a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t you should f i r s t reduce f u t u r e earnings t o present value using a reasonable r a t e of discount f o r t h i s purpose. The evidence a s t o annual i n f l a t i o n which has an e f f e c t on d e p r e c i a t i n g t h e value of a d o l l a r should a l s o be considered a s t o what e x t e n t such d e p r e c i a t i o n o f f s e t s t h e i n t e r e s t t h a t could be earned on an award of f u t u r e earnings. I n a d d i t i o n , you may consider wage i n c r e a s e s t h e deceased might have expected t o receive i n a r r i v i n g a t deceased's t r u e l o s s of f u t u r e earnings and earning capacity."
A s previously pointed o u t , t h i s Court approves of considera-

t i o n by t h e jury of t h e f a c t of i n f l a t i o n i n a r r i v i n g a t an award f o r l o s s of f u t u r e earnings, where t h e evidence a s t o annual i n f l a t i o n and r e l a t e d matters i s presented, a s h e r e , i n a competent manner. Resner v. The.N.P. Railway, supra.

The t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 8 a s being d u p l i c i t o u s . ' W f i n d i t t o have been p r o p e r l y e r e f u s e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The c o u r t a l s o r e f u s e d t o g i v e d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s No, 14, No. 15 and No. 16, on c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e impact of income t a x e s on damage awards. I n so doing, t h e t r i a l c o u r t Future income t a x

was i n accord w i t h t h e weight of a u t h o r i t y ,

l i a b i l i t y i s n o t a proper c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n an award f o r l o s s of future earnings. 343 P.2d 848. Defendant r e l i e s on Burlington Northern, I n c . v. Boxberger, 529 F.2d 284 (1975), f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t f u t u r e t a x l i a b i l i t y should be considered i n making a damage award.
A careful

Bracy v. Great Northern Ry. Co.,

136 Mont. 65,

reading of Boxberger, however, d i s c l o s e s t h a t i t i s an admitted d e p a r t u r e from t h e m a j o r i t y p o s i t i o n . The c o u r t t h e r e i n s t a t e d

r h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e e f f e c t of f u t u r e income t a x l i a b i l i t y
i s proper when competent evidence i s brought f o r t h a t t r i a l

showing t h e l i k e l y amount of t a x . such showing.
,

Defendant h e r e h a s made no

A f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d by defendant was t o t h e form
of t h e v e r d i c t approved by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h a t i t i n c l u d e s

items of compensatory damage n o t contemplated under t h e FELA, The same reasoning employed regarding d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n t o c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 14 and No. 20 i s no l e s s a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s instance. i n t h i s case. I s s u e 8. This i s s u e concerns t h e p r o p r i e t y of admission i n Defendant was n o t p r e j u d i c e d by t h e form of v e r d i c t

evidence of conclusions contained i n t h e F e d e r a l Railroad Adminis-

t r a t i o n Report of i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e t r a i n wreck of May 11, 1971. 45 U.S.C.541 states:

" N e i t h e r t h e r e p o r t r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 38 of t h i s t i t l e n o r any r e p o r t of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n provided f o r i n s e c t i o n 40 of t h i s t i t l e n o r any p a r t t h e r e o f s h a l l b e admitted a s evidence o r used f o r any purpose i n any s u i t o r a c t i o n f o r damages growing o u t of any m a t t e r mentioned i n s a i d r e p o r t o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n

."

During t r i a l c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f r e a d i n t o t h e r e c o r d , b e f o r e t h e j u r y , a v e r b a t i m copy of c e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t r e p o r t , which were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e complaint. Counsel was a l s o p e r m i t t e d , over o b j e c t i o n , t o r e a d t o t h e j u r y an i n t e r r o g a t o r y t o defendant and t h e amended answer t h e r e t o . The answer a l s o c o n t a i n e d a c c i d e n t r e p o r t c o n c l u s i o n s . c a s e was t h e r e p o r t i t s e l f made a p a r t of t h e r e c o r d . In neither A t no time

was t h e j u r y informed t h e s t a t e m e n t s b e i n g read were t a k e n from t h e a c c i d e n t r e p o r t o r based on f i n d i n g s o f t h e F e d e r a l R a i l r o a d Administration. T h i s Court does n o t condone such a method of b r i n g i n g potent i a l l y objectionable material before the jury. e r r o r , i f any, was harmless. However, h e r e t h e

The m a n i f e s t purpose of t h e p r o h i b i -

t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n i s t h e p r e v e n t i o n of t h e u s e i n evidence of a r e p o r t which, being i s s u e d by a f e d e r a l agency, h a s t h e outward appearance of being c o n c l u s i v e on t h e f a c t s . The e v i l t o be

avoided i s t h e undue weight t h e j u r y would g i v e t o t h e r e p o r t , denominated a s such, over o t h e r evidence produced a t t h e t r i a l . Here, i t was d e f e n d a n t ' s own answer t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r y ,
produced a t t r i a l , which was t h e v e h i c l e f o r i n t r o d u c t i o n i n

evidence of c e r t a i n of t h e r e p o r t c o n c l u s i o n s .

W cannot s e e e

how t h i s procedure, given t h e o t h e r evidence produced i n t h i s

p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , p r e j u d i c e d defendant i n a s u b s t a n t i a l manner. The judgment e n t e r e d upon t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y i s affirmed.

J ~ ~ H M~ o r t F ,D i s t r i c t . Judge,w* t i n g f o r M r . Chief slt J u s t i c e Paul G. Hatfield.

on..

We Concur:

/i

Justices.



Download 5196b1f3-a0e5-44f7-b95a-0569bde582dc.pdf

Montana Law