This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A Union Pacific Railroad Company employee was assaulted by a coworker at a job site in New Mexico. The assault occurred during a meeting where the Plaintiff raised safety concerns about equipment that had not been repaired. The Plaintiff suffered neck injuries requiring medical attention and surgery (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: A jury found Union Pacific Railroad Company negligent and awarded damages to the Plaintiff.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence of negligence, incorrect jury instructions, unsupported claims of negligent supervision and training, potential double recovery of damages, and excessive damages. They also contended that amounts paid for medical bills should be offset from the judgment (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence by Union Pacific under the FELA?
- Did the jury instructions correctly state the governing law?
- Were the damages awarded by the jury excessive?
- Should amounts paid by Union Pacific for medical bills be offset from the judgment?
Disposition
- The court affirmed the jury's verdict but remanded the case to determine and offset the amount required by the collective bargaining agreement.
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Baca and Wray JJ. concurring):
The court found substantial evidence supporting the jury's finding of negligence under both respondeat superior and direct negligence theories. The evidence showed that the assault was foreseeable and that Union Pacific failed to prevent it. The jury instructions were deemed adequate, and the damages awarded were not excessive. The court agreed that amounts paid under the collective bargaining agreement should be offset from the judgment, but not amounts related to the RRB or insurer liens, as Union Pacific did not provide sufficient authority for those claims (paras 4-49).