Background
Morgan Fitch, a BNSF Railway conductor, was seriously injured in February 2020 when an undesired emergency stop threw her down the steps inside a locomotive. She sued BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging shoulder and mild traumatic brain injuries that left her unable to obtain meaningful employment. BNSF admitted liability, leaving damages for trial.
Fitch sought approximately $10 million to $15 million, including about $3.7 million in future earnings and benefits. Her experts testified that she was permanently unable to return to full-time competitive employment. BNSF’s experts disputed that she had sustained a brain injury, testified that her shoulder had healed, questioned the validity of her reported symptoms, and opined that she could return to work without restrictions. The jury awarded $700,000—$450,000 in past earnings and benefits, $150,000 in future medical expenses, and $100,000 in noneconomic damages—but nothing for future lost earnings. The district court denied Fitch’s motion for a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. A new trial based on an inadequate damages award is warranted only when the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and allowing it to stand would cause a miscarriage of justice. Appellate review is doubly deferential because the court defers both to the jury’s factual determinations and to the trial judge’s assessment of the verdict.
Abundant evidence supported the jury’s finding that Fitch had no future earnings loss. The jury could credit BNSF’s experts, reject the work restrictions imposed by Fitch’s treating physician, and find that her injury did not prevent her from returning to work as a conductor or obtaining similarly lucrative employment elsewhere. The court rejected Fitch’s contention that losing her BNSF job necessarily entitled her to future lost wages because the jury could reasonably find that the loss was caused by unreasonable medical restrictions rather than by the work-related injury.
Key Takeaways
- A district court’s refusal to order a new trial based on allegedly inadequate damages receives exceptionally deferential appellate review.
- A jury may resolve conflicting medical and vocational testimony by crediting the defense experts, even when the plaintiff presents evidence of permanent disability.
- Losing a railroad job does not by itself establish future lost earnings under FELA; the plaintiff must show that the employer’s negligence caused the claimed future wage loss.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores how difficult it is to overturn a jury’s damages determination when competing experts offer materially different accounts of a plaintiff’s injuries and capacity to work. In FELA cases, employer liability does not eliminate the plaintiff’s burden to prove that each claimed category of damages was caused by the work-related injury.
For trial lawyers, the opinion also highlights the importance of credibility evidence. Testimony about Fitch’s physical activities, self-reported symptoms, validity testing, and ability to work gave the jury a sufficient basis to reject her claim for millions of dollars in future earnings.