Glover v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., WD

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Citation841 S.W.2d 211
Decision Date08 September 1992
Docket NumberNo. WD,WD
PartiesGerald GLOVER, Appellant, v. The ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Respondent. 45815.

Page 211

841 S.W.2d 211
Gerald GLOVER, Appellant,
No. WD 45815.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Western District.
Sept. 8, 1992.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to
Supreme Court Denied
Oct. 27, 1992.
Application to Transfer Denied
Dec. 18, 1992.

Page 212

Melinda Sanderson, Fairview Heights, Ill., for appellant.

Thomas S. Stewart, Douglas R. Dalgleish, Kansas City, for respondent.


LOWENSTEIN, Chief Judge.

This appeal is taken by the plaintiff, Glover, from the granting of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) in favor of the defendant employer, the railway, in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) action. 45 U.S.C. § 51 (1986).

The evidence showed Glover, a carmen welder hurt his back while lifting a metal plate along with another Santa Fe employee. A jury returned a $75,000 verdict. In sustaining the j.n.o.v. motion the court noted an absence of negligence as required under the federal act.

The plaintiff and Romero were going to install a "patch," a metal plate, to a boxcar. The patch was to be welded to the car which was up on a tripod. The patch is about 63 inches long and weighs about 94 pounds. Romero was down on one knee with an end of the patch sitting on his knee--Glover came over and raised the other end six to eight inches and then dropped the patch. Romero was getting "ready to go underneath the car" with his end, when, Glover, who "was still on the outside" sustained the back injury in question. Replacing and installing the patches was a regular part of the job. The employer had a work rule, never offered in evidence, which encouraged workers to lift heavy objects "with your legs." The case was submitted on the company not providing "safe conditions and safe methods."

Glover here contends there was sufficient evidence for the negligence submission, despite the trial court's concern the lifting here was performed "the same way over the course of years without incident" and did not establish the element of foreseeability.

This appeal concerns whether a judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered for a defendant was done in error. The contention presented is whether the plaintiff proved a submissible case of negligence in a FELA case. This is the equivalent to a directed verdict at the close of evidence. Rhodes v. Marsh, 807 S.W.2d 222, 223 (Mo.App.1991). This court's view of the evidence is that most favorable to the verdict. Marti v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 761 S.W.2d 254, 255 (Mo.App.1988). Such a judgment is proper only if reasonable minds could not differ. Wion v. Carl I. Brown & Company, 808 S.W.2d 950, 952-53 (Mo.App.1991). Review then is as a matter of law, Rhodes, 807 S.W.2d at 222.

As a matter of law the granting of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict was correct. On the issue of negligence there is not the slightest bit of evidence, or inferences from the evidence, Zibung v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 776 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Mo. banc 1989), to satisfy this necessary element of a FELA action. Despite Glover's arguments to the trial court, and in his brief on appeal about him being in a

Page 213

crouched or awkward position, this is simply not borne out by the record. Co-employee Romero was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Com'n, 75313
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 17, 1993
    ...Granting the judgment n.o.v. is the equivalent of directing a verdict at the close of all the evidence. Glover v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R.R., 841 S.W.2d 211, 212 (Mo.App.1992). Judgment n.o.v. is proper as a matter of law, even though the defendant has not moved for a directed verdict......
  • Euton v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 69007
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 12, 1996
    ...nor any reasonable foreseeability of harm, the FELA action may be taken from the jury. Glover v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 841 S.W.2d 211, 213 In FELA suits, "Congress vested the power of decision in these actions exclusively in the jury in all but the infrequent cases where fair-min......
  • White v. Union Pacific R. Co., 62204
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 28, 1993
    ...of judgment notwithstanding the verdict is proper only if reasonable minds could not differ. Glover v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry., 841 S.W.2d 211, 212 Plaintiff's petition alleged that defendant was negligent in the following ways: "(a) failed to provide a reasonably safe place in whi......
  • Miller v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2007 Ohio 5470 (Ohio App. 10/12/2007), Court of Appeals No. L-07-1103.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • October 12, 2007 injury that results from lifting objects over a period of time. Grover v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (Mo. App. W.D. 1992), 841 S.W.2d 211. Appellant's own statements support the conclusion that his injuries were not the result of a specific incident. Appellant conjectured that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT