Liberatore v. Monongahela Ry. Co.

• Citation: 2016 PA Super 79,140 A.3d 16
• Decision Date: 07 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1011 EDA 2015,1011 EDA 2015
• Parties: Larry LIBERATORE, Appellee v. MONONGAHELA RAILWAY COMPANY, and American Premier Underwriters, Inc., Formerly Known as Penn Central Corporation, Individually and/or as Success–In–Interest or Liability to Penn Central Transportation Company, Penn Central Company, the Pennsylvania New York Central Railroad Company, and/or the Pennsylvania Railroad and Consolidated Rail Corporation, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Appellants.
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

140 A.3d 16

2016 PA Super 79

Larry LIBERATORE, Appellee

v.MONONGAHELA RAILWAY COMPANY, and American Premier Underwriters, Inc., Formerly Known as Penn Central Corporation, Individually and/or as Success–In–Interest or Liability to Penn Central Transportation Company, Penn Central Company, the Pennsylvania New York Central Railroad Company, and/or the Pennsylvania Railroad and Consolidated Rail Corporation, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Appellants.

No. 1011 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Jan. 26, 2016.

Filed April 7, 2016.

Nancy L. Winkelman, Philadelphia, for Norfolk Southern and Consolidated Rail, appellants.

David L. Lockard, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Marion Erickson, Philadelphia, for Association of American Railroads, amicus curiae.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^*

OPINION BY OTT, J.:

Consolidated Rail Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, (collectively “Railroad”), appeal from the judgment of $87,500.00, entered on February 25, 2015, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of plaintiff, Larry Liberatore, in an action to recover personal injury damages pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act (“FELA”).¹ On appeal, Railroad argues the trial court erred in granting Liberatore's motion to enforce full satisfaction of the verdict, thereby precluding it from deducting Liberatore's share of Railroad Retirement Tax Act (“RRTA”)² taxes, as well as sick benefits Liberatore had received through the Railroad Retirement Board (“RRB”),³ and a collectively-bargained supplemental sickness plan, from the jury award.⁴ Railroad also challenges the court's preliminary determination that its issues are waived because they were not raised in a post-trial motion. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment entered in favor of Liberatore, and remand for further proceedings.

The factual and procedural history underlying this appeal are aptly summarized by the trial court as follows:

On May 22, 2013 Plaintiff Larry Liberatore [ ] filed a complaint for negligence against Defendants American Premier Underwriters, Inc., Monongahela Railway Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, and Norfolk Southern Corporation pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., alleging that he developed injuries to his right shoulder during the course and scope of his employment with Defendants. On May 13, 2014, the parties stipulated to substitute Norfolk Southern Railway Company for Norfolk Southern Corporation Defendant. On May 13, 2014, the parties also stipulated to dismiss American Premier Underwriters, Inc. from the lawsuit. Therefore, Consolidated Rail Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company were the two remaining Defendants that went to trial. The jury was instructed to attribute any negligence on Monongahela Railway Company's behalf to Consolidated Rail Corporation.

A jury trial began for this matter on October 24, 2014. On November 7, 2014, the jury reached its verdict, awarding [Liberatore] damages in the amount of $175,000 and finding Consolidated Rail Corporation to be 25% negligent, Norfolk Southern Railway Company to be 25% negligent, and [Liberatore] to be 50% negligent. On November 11, 2014, the Court issued a trial worksheet stating “Jury Verdict for Plaintiff” and that that the total amount awarded to [Liberatore] was $87,500.00.

On November 17, 2014, pursuant to Section 53 of the FELA ², Defendants Consolidated Rail Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (hereinafter “[Railroad]”) filed a post-trial Motion to Mold the Verdict. On November 19, 2014, this Court granted that Motion and molded the verdict to reflect a verdict of $87,500 to be awarded to [Liberatore].

² Section 53 of the FELA states that the fact that an employee is guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar recovery, but that the damages shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of the employee's negligence. 45 U.S.C. § 53.

On January 27, 2015, [Liberatore] filed a Motion to Enforce Full Satisfaction of Verdict and Judgment which stated that [Railroad] had arbitrarily decided to reduce the molded verdict amount by the additional tax and lien amounts. [Liberatore] also stated that the deductions denied [him] the “opportunity to negotiate and/or reduce those purported liens.” That motion contained a scanned letter from [Railroad] that stated the following:

Enclosed please find our drafts in the total amount of $52,172.65, calculated as follows:

Net Verdict Amount	$87,500.00
	Plus Interest thru 12/23/14	$647.25
	Less SSB [5 ] Lien	($17,320.50)
	Less RRB Lien	($8,132.35)
	Less RRB Taxes	($10,521.75)
	Net Draft Amount	$52,172.65

This constitutes full and final satisfaction of the verdict in case number 120502075, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on May 22, 2013.

This Court granted said Motion on January 28, 2015.

On February 11, 2015, [Liberatore] filed a Motion to Hold [Railroad] in Contempt for its Refusal to Obey This Court's January 28, 2015 Order. Among the relief requested, [Liberatore] asked the Court to order [Railroad] to pay the difference between $87,500.00 and $52,172.65, or $35,327.35.

On February 13, 2015, [Railroad] filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's January 28, 2015 Order. On February 19, 2015, the Court denied this Motion as untimely.

The morning of February 23, 2015, [Railroad] [f]iled a Notice of Appeal appealing this Court's January 28, 2015 Order. Later that day, this Court held a hearing on [Liberatore's] Motion to Hold [Railroad] in Contempt on February 23, 2015. From the bench, this Court granted the Motion and issued an Order that ordered [Railroad] to pay: (1) $35,327.35 within three days of the Court's Order; (2) reasonable attorney's fees associated with said Motion; (3) cost for filing the Motion; (4) sanctions at the rate of $1,000 per day after the three-day grace period after the Court's order for payment of $35,327.35.

On February 25, 2015, [Railroad] filed a Praecipe to Enter Judgment. On February 25, 2015, the Prothonotary entered judgment which stated “Judgment is entered in favor of Larry R. Liberatore and against Norfolk Southern Corporation, Monongahela Railway Corporation and Consolidated Rail Corporation on the amount of $87,500.00 on the Court Order dated 01/28/2015.”

On February 26, 2015, [Liberatore] filed a Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees. On March 4, 2015, this Court granted the Motion, ordering [Railroad] to pay attorney's fees in the amount of $2,550 and costs in the amount of $28 within 20 days of the Order.

On February 27, 2015, [Railroad] paid $35,327.35 plus twenty percent interest, for a total of $42,392.82 to the Office of Judicial Records in compliance with this Court's February 23, 2015 Order. [Railroad] therefore avoided the imposition of the $1,000.00 per day sanction for failure to timely deposit the aforementioned funds with the Court.

Also on February 27, 2015, [Railroad] filed a Motion to Amend Judgment Entered on February 25, 2015. [Railroad] stated that the docket should be revised to reflect that a verdict was only entered against Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Consolidated Rail Corporation.

On March 27, 2015, [Railroad] filed a second Notice of Appeal, appealing the judgment entered by the Prothonotary on February 25, 2015.

On April 6, 2015, this Court denied [Railroad's] Motion to Amend Judgment Entered on February 25, 2015.

On April 15, 2015, [Railroad] filed a third Notice of Appeal, appealing this Court's April 6, 2015 Order.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/2015, at 2–5 (internal citations omitted).^{6 ,7} In its first issue, Railroad addresses the trial court's determination that it failed to preserve any claims for review on appeal. Specifically, the court found that, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.1, Railroad was required to file a post-trial motion, within 10 days of the verdict, to “present the manner in which [it] intended to distribute the funds.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/2015, at 9. Because Railroad failed to do so, the court concluded Liberatore “was not given a chance to respond and/or dispute the proposed distribution.” Id. Accordingly, the court determined Railroad's claims were waived.

Conversely, Railroad asserts it was not required to file post-trial motions. First, it emphasizes that post-trial motions are necessary to permit a trial court to correct errors it made at trial. Here, however, the issues arose for the first time in a post-trial context, when Railroad paid the adjusted award, and the trial court granted Liberatore's motion to enforce the full judgment. See Railroad's Brief at 13–14. Second, Railroad claims it was not required to seek the trial court's approval to deduct RRTA taxes and previously-paid sick benefits from the jury award because it was legally required to deduct those amounts and “no court permission is needed to perform a legally-required act.” Id. at 15.

We agree with Railroad's contention that it was not required to file a post-trial motion seeking the trial court's permission to deduct the RRTA taxes, the RRB lien and the supplementary sick benefits from Liberatore's FELA award. As we will discuss infra, Railroad was legally required to deduct these amounts from the judgment, and, consequently, it was not obligated to seek the trial court's permission to do so.

Moreover, Railroad was not required to file post-trial motions to challenge a court ruling that occurred after trial. Railroad is not disputing either the jury's award to Liberatore or its finding of liability, but rather, contests the trial court's grant of Liberatore's post-trial motion to enforce the judgment—an issue that did not arise until after trial. See Atwell v. Beckwith Machinery Co., 872 A.2d 1216, 1220 (Pa.Super.2005) (finding appellant's challenge of trial court order entered on December 22, 2003, which struck a judgment entered on December 1, 2003, was not waived based upon appellant's failure to file timely post-trial motions as appella...