Sorrell v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 88597.,SC 88597. |
| Citation | 249 S.W.3d 207 |
| Parties | Timothy SORRELL, Respondent, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
David A. Dick, James W. Erwin, Thompson Coburn, LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Roger C. Denton, Kathy A. Reichbach, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Overview
1
Timothy Sorrell, a railroad trackman, was injured when the dump truck he was driving for his employer, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, went off the road and tipped on its side. Sorrell brought suit against Norfolk under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. section 51, et seq. The jury returned a verdict for Sorrell in the amount of $1.5 million, and the trial court entered judgment upon the jury's verdict.2
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed with Norfolk that the jury instructions improperly reflected a more lenient causation standard for railroad negligence than for employee contributory negligence. That Court concluded that the causation standard under FELA should be the same for both categories of negligence. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158, 127 S.Ct. 799, 808-09, 166 L.Ed.2d 638 (2007). Although the jury was improperly instructed, the Supreme Court noted that on remand this Court could determine whether Norfolk was prejudiced. Norfolk Railway at 809. It was not. The judgment is affirmed.
Sorrell was driving a dump truck on a gravel road alongside the tracks when another Norfolk truck, driven by a fellow employee, approached. The two drivers provided different accounts of what happened next, but somehow Sorrell's truck went off the road and tipped on its side. According to Sorrell's testimony, he feared that the two trucks could not pass each other, so he pulled his truck as close to the right side of the road as possible. After the other truck passed, Sorrell tried to drive his truck back onto the road, but the front tire on the passenger side "washed out" and his truck flipped onto its side.
The other driver testified that he pulled his truck off the road and stopped when he was 400 to 500 feet from Sorrell. While waiting for Sorrell to pass, he saw Sorrell's truck veer to its right, causing the truck's front passenger-side tire to drop off the road, after which the truck flipped onto its side.
The trial court gave an instruction based on MAI 32.07(B), which instructs the jury to find a plaintiff contributorily negligent if his or her negligence "directly contributed to cause" the injury. As to the railroad's negligence, the trial court instructed as provided in MAI 24.01 that such negligence is measured by whether the railroad's negligence "contributed in whole or in part" to the injury.
Standard of review
To reverse on grounds of instructional error, the party claiming instructional error must establish that the instruction at issue misdirected, mislead, or confused the jury. Additionally, prejudice must have resulted from the instructional error. Dhyne v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 188 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. banc 2006); see also Young v. New York, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 291 S.W.2d 64, 67 (Mo.1956) ().
What are the correct instructions on causation?
Although the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the causation standard under FELA should be the same for both railroad negligence and for employee contributory negligence, that Court declined to set out the proper standard of causation. That Court, however, did set out the methods adopted in other jurisdictions to apply a single standard. Norfolk Railway at 809, n. 2. Effective January 1, 2008, this Court has approved new instructions for MAI 24.01(A), MAI 24.01(B), and MAI 32.07(B) to meet the Supreme Court directive.
Norfolk Railway was not prejudiced by the instructions given
Sorrell correctly argues that even if the causation standards contained in the instructions were improper, the judgment should be affirmed because any error was harmless. Given the evidence before it, if the jury found Sorrell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Arkansas & Missouri R.R. Co.
...not prejudiced by the disparate instructions to the jury, the error was harmless and no new trial was required. Sorrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 249 S.W.3d 207, 209-10 (Mo.2008). 5. The complete text of the negligence instruction is as JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CLAIM Your ......
-
SKMDV Holdings, Inc. v. Green Jacobson, P.C.
...claiming the instructional error must establish the instruction at issue misdirected, misled, or confused the jury. Sorrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 249 S.W.3d 207, 209 (Mo. banc 2008). Additionally, prejudice must have resulted from an instructional error. Id., citing Dhyne v. State Farm Fir......
-
FLESHNER v. PEPOSE VISION INSTITUTE, PC
...instruction as submitted misled, misdirected, or confused the jury; and (2) prejudice resulted from the instruction. Sorrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 249 S.W.3d 207, 209 (Mo. banc 2008). Analysis Fleshner was an at-will employee at PVI. Generally, at-will employees may be terminated for any r......
-
State v. Welch
...misdirected, mislead, or confused the jury. Additionally, prejudice must have resulted from the instructional error. Sorrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 249 S.W.3d 207, 209 (Mo. banc 2008).B. Analysis Article I, Section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution protects the right to a unanimous jury ve......