St Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Dickerson
Decision Date | 04 March 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-914,84-914 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. Robert Wayne DICKERSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In this case, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's refusal to instruct the jury in a Federal Employers' Liability Act case that its award to the plaintiff should reflect the present value of any future losses the plaintiff should sustain. Because such an instruction is required as a matter of federal law, we reverse.
On December 11, 1978, respondent, a railroad policeman, was permanently disabled in a fall from a railroad car that he was inspecting for evidence of vandalism. Alleging that the fall was the result of petitioner's negligence, he brought suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis. Respondent introduced evidence that his future wage losses resulting from his injuries would, over the course of his lifetime, amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 million.
Petitioner requested that the judge submit to the jury the following instruction:
The trial judge refused to submit the instruction because such an instruction was not provided for in the Missouri Approved Instructions promulgated by the Supreme Court of Missouri for use in FELA cases. Accordingly, the jury instructions on damages were limited to the following:
The jury found that the fall was the result of petitioner's negligence and awarded respondent $1 million in damages.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. 674 S.W.2d 165 (1984). Rejecting petitioner's contention that the failure to instruct the jury on present value was error, the court held that a present-value instruction was inappropriate as a matter of Missouri law. The court's ruling was in accord with two previous opinions of the Missouri Supreme Court holding that because the Missouri Approved Instructions do not call for a present-value instruction in FELA cases, such an instruction may not be given. Bair v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 647 S.W.2d 507 (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Burlington Northern Inc. v. Bair, 464 U.S. 830, 104 S.Ct. 107, 78 L.Ed.2d 109 (1983); Dunn v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 621 S.W.2d 245 (1981) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Dunn, 454 U.S. 1145, 102 S.Ct. 1007, 71 L.Ed.2d 298 (1982).
As a general matter, FELA cases adjudicated in state courts are subject to state procedural rules, but the substantive law governing them is federal. Although the Court's decisions in this area "point up the impossibility of laying down a precise rule to distinguish 'substance' from 'procedure,' " Brown v. Western R. of Alabama, 338 U.S. 294, 296, 70 S.Ct. 105, 106, 94 L.Ed. 100 (1949), it is settled that the propriety of jury instructions concerning the measure of damages in an FELA action is an issue of "substance" determined by federal law. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490, 493, 100 S.Ct. 755, 757, 62 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980). Accordingly, petitioner's contention that it was entitled to a jury instruction on present value cannot be dismissed on the ground that such an instruction is not to be found in the Missouri Approved Instructions. Whether such an instruction should have been given is a federal question.
Not only is it a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roberts v. Csx Transp., Inc., Record No. 090194.
...court are "subject to state procedural rules, but the substantive law governing them is federal." St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Dickerson, 470 U.S. 409, 411, 105 S.Ct. 1347, 84 L.Ed.2d 303 (1985); see Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kuhn, 284 U.S. 44, 46-47, 52 S.Ct. 45, 76 L.Ed. 157 (1931) ("[I]n ......
-
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co., A17-1242
...the measure of actual damages "is inseparably connected with the right of action." Id. (citing St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Dickerson , 470 U.S. 409, 105 S.Ct. 1347, 84 L.Ed.2d 303 (1985) ; Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Liepelt , 444 U.S. 490, 100 S.Ct. 755, 62 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980) ; and Chesapeake & O......
-
Filkins v. McAllister Bros., Inc., Civ. A. No. 87-135-N.
...are to be anticipated, the verdict should be made up on the basis of their present value only." St. Louis S.W. Ry. v. Dickerson, 470 U.S. 409, 412, 105 S.Ct. 1347, 1348-49, 84 L.Ed.2d 303 (1985). It is "self-evident that a given sum of money in hand is worth more than the sum of money payab......
-
Fair v. BNSF Ry. Co., F068769
...court, state law governs procedural questions, while federal law governs substantive issues. (St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Dickerson (1985) 470 U.S. 409, 411, 105 S.Ct. 1347, 84 L.Ed.2d 303.) State procedure does not apply, however, if it results in the denial of a federal right granted......
-
Disability discrimination
...“damages awarded in suits governed by federal law should be reduced to present value.” (Citing St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Dickerson, 470 U.S. 409, 412 (1985)). The “self-evident” reason is that “a given sum of money in hand is worth more than the like sum of money payable in the futur......
-
Table of Cases
...Rptr. 2d 366 (1995), §347 Specht v. Jensen , 853 F.2d 805, 809 (10th Cir. 1988), §424.7 St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Dickerson , 470 U.S. 409, 105 S. Ct. 1347, 84 L. Ed. 2d 303 (1985), §551.1.11 St. Martin v. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc., 224 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2000), §3......
-
Premises Liability Law
...to state procedural rules, but the substantive law governing them is federal.” St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Dickerson , 470 U.S. 409, 411 (1985). FELA abolishes the defenses of contributory negligence and assumed risk. Generally it is interpreted to impose a liberal view of fau......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...§551 Qඎൺඅංൿඒංඇ ൺඇൽ Aඍඍൺർංඇ Eඑඉൾඋඍ Wංඍඇൾඌඌൾඌ 5-126 The United States Supreme Court, in St. Louis Southwestern RyCo. v. Dickerson , 470 U.S. 409, 105 S. Ct. 1347, 89 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985), approved the long-standing principle of damages stated in Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Kelly , 241......