Williams v. City of New Orleans

Decision Date19 January 2005
Docket NumberNo. 2004-CA-0655.,2004-CA-0655.
Citation897 So.2d 744
PartiesBrandon WILLIAMS v. THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS by and Through the PUBLIC BELT RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

James M. Williams, Houghtaling & Williams, L.L.C., Metairie, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee.

Lawrence J. Ernst, Gregory S. LaCour, Christovich & Kearney, L.L.P., New Orleans, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant.

Court composed of Judge JAMES F. McKAY III, Judge DENNIS R. BAGNERIS Sr., Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD.

EDWIN A. LOMBARD, J.

This appeal is from the trial court judgment determining damages in this action arising under provisions of the Federal Employers Liability Act ("FELA") for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while employed as a switchman for the New Orleans Public Belt ("NOPB") railroad which is controlled and operated by defendant, the City of New Orleans through the Public Belt Railroad Commission. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

Brandon Williams was injured on April 27, 2000, while working as a switchman for the NOPB when the locomotive he was on crashed into the rear of a parked locomotive. He sustained serious back and neck resulting in extensive medical treatment, including a two-level fusion procedure on March 13, 2002, and ten-percent permanent partial impairment of his whole body function1. During the judge trial of this matter (which occurred over a four day period in November and December 2003) the parties stipulated that NOPB was eighty-five percent negligent in causing the train crash that injured the plaintiff and that NOPB's negligence was a legal and factual cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, the only issue remaining for determination by the court was the appropriate amount of damages recoverable by the plaintiff. The trial judge awarded the following:

                General Damages .................................. $350,000.00
                  Medical Expenses ................................. $112,563.95
                  Past Lost Wages .................................. $145,591.58
                  Future Lost Earning Capacity ..................... $762,427.94
                  Loss of Fringe Benefits .......................... $137,237.03
                

The judgment was signed on January 7, 2004.

Discussion

On appeal, NOPB challenges only the trial court's award of future lost wages and benefits, arguing that it is grossly excessive because the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by returning to work as a truck driver, obtain comparable work in another industry, or re-train himself in a new profession at Delgado Community College.

The Federal Employers Liability Act ("FELA") was designed to provide a federal statutory negligence action and is a railroad employee's exclusive remedy for workplace injuries2. Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 356 U.S. 326, 78 S.Ct. 758, 2 L.Ed.2d 799 (1958); Bodenheimer v. New Orleans Public Belt and CSX, 2002-0441, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/14/03) 845 So.2d 1279, 1282. Determining FELA liability is a distinctly federal question. Sinkler, supra. Although state courts have concurrent jurisdiction, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 56, federal law, and not state law, must be applied. Monessen Southwestern Railway Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330, 108 S.Ct. 1837, 100 L.Ed.2d 349 (1988); Bodenheimer, 845 So.2d at 1283. Under FELA, a successful plaintiff is entitled to recover for all past, present and probable future harm attributable to defendant's tortious conduct, including pain, suffering and mental anguish. 45 U.S.C. § 51; Marchica v. Long Island RR, 31 F.3d 1197, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1079, 115 S.Ct. 727, 130 L.Ed.2d 631. Because the proper measure of damages under the FELA is inseparably connected with the right of action, it is an issue of substance that must be settled according to the general principles of law as applied by the federal courts. Monessen Southwestern Railway Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330, 335, 108 S.Ct. 1837, 100 L.Ed.2d 349 (1988); Bodenheimer, 845 So.2d at 1283; Shaw v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co., 170 So.2d 874, 879 (La. 4th Cir.1965). If the railroad's negligence played any part, no matter how small, in causing an employee's injury then the railroad is liable for the resulting damages. Rogers v. Pacific Railway Co 352 U.S. 500, 508, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957); E'Teif v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 1998-2503 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/22/99), 733 So.2d 155.

First, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff was not required to mitigate his damages by returning to work as a truck driver. Dr. Claude Williams of the Southern Orthopaedic Specialists, retained by the defendant to perform two independent medical examinations ("IME") before and after the plaintiff's surgery, testified at trial that based upon his examination and review of the plaintiff's records he estimated in July 2002 that the plaintiff had a 10% permanent partial impairment of function in his body as a whole, but it was his opinion that neck surgery did not impair and individual's ability to work as a long haul driver. On the other hand, the plaintiff's treating orthopedist, Dr. Donovan, opined at trial that in light of the two-level surgical fusion of the plaintiff's neck, the plaintiff should not be employed as a long-haul truck driver. In addition, the plaintiff testified that employment as a local driver required lifting and the functional capacity evaluation performed in August 2003 for the defendant by Crescent City Physical Therapy indicates that the plaintiff is restricted to performing light to medium work with no lifting greater than 40 pounds. Accordingly, based upon the record, we cannot find that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in ruling that the plaintiff was not required to return to work as a truck driver to mitigate damages.

Next, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in its award of damages for future lost wages and benefits given the fact that the plaintiff could either obtain comparable employment or retrain himself in a new profession at a community college. However, although the plaintiff graduated from high school, the vocation rehabilitation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Breaux
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • February 8, 2012
    ... ... On August 28, 2008, P.L. was taken to Children's Hospital in New Orleans for an examination by Dr. Yameika Head, stipulated by the parties to be an expert in the field of ... 11 Furthermore, the supreme court, in State v. Williams, stated that the purpose of a rape shield law (LSA-C.E. 412) is to protect victims of rape from ... ...
  • O'Neal v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • February 15, 2022
    ...long term effects of her injury on her life, into consideration. Id., 14 O'Neal's third argued case is Williams v. City of New Orleans. 897 So.2d 744, 2004-0655 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/05), writ denied sub now. In Williams, the plaintiff was a switchman for the New Orleans Public Belt railroad......

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