No. 13097
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
1977
HELEN TORCHIA, i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s
a personal representative,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC.
a corporation,
Defendant and Respondent and
Cross A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal-from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Hon. P a u l G. H a t f i e l d , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Gough, Booth, Shanahan and J o h n s o n , H e l e n a , Montana
C o r d e l l Johnson a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hoyt and Bottomly, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
John C . Hoyt a r g u e d and R i c h a r d V. Bottomly a r g u e d ,
G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: June 6 , I977
Filed: '_?I" I I
Em
&,
. # ;
:
f
~ ' ~ .
~
*'+# ~ i ~ - ~ -
Clerk
Hon. M. James S o r t e , D i s t r i c t Judge, d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court:
This i s a wrongful death a c t i o n f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
Cascade County, under t h e Federal ~ m p l o y e r s ' L i a b i l i t y Act, 45
U.S.C. $ 5 1 e t u s e q . (FELA).
P l a i n t i f f Helen Torchia a s personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e
e s t a t e of decedent Gennaro Torchia, and on behalf of t h e i r
c h i l d r e n , sued defendant Burlington Northern, I n c . f o r damages
occasioned by t h e death of h e r husband Gennaro Torchia.
Gennaro Torchia, a Burlington Northern fireman, was k i l l e d
i n a head-on c o l l i s i o n between two r a i l r o a d t r a i n s . I n her
complaint p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d negligence under t h e FELA and
prayed f o r compensatory damages. She a l s o , i n d i v i d u a l l y and
a s personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e minor c h i l d r e n , a l l e g e d
w i l l f u l and wanton conduct and prayed f o r p u n i t i v e damages.
I n i t s amended answer, defendant admitted 1 i a b i l i t y " f o r n e g l i -
gence under t h e FELA. The t r i a l c o u r t denied defendant's
motion t o s t r i k e those a l l e g a t i o n s from t h e complaint which
had reference t o p u n i t i v e damages.
The case was t r i e d t o a jury on t h e i s s u e s of compensatory
damages and conduct which would form t h e b a s i s f o r an award
of p u n i t i v e damages. The jury returned a v e r d i c t f o r p l a i n t i f f
f o r compensatory damages only, i n t h e amount of $580,000. The
jury found t h e f a c t s d i d n o t j u s t i f y an award of p u n i t i v e damages.
Defendant appeals from t h e judgment entered on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t .
P l a i n t i f f crossappeals from an order denying h e r motion f o r a
new t r i a l on t h e i s s u e of p u n i t i v e damages.
The f a c t s of t h i s c a r e a r e :
A t approximately 11:45 p.m. on May 11, 1971, a t a p o i n t
near S h e f f e l s on t h e Burlington Northern l i n e between Great F a l l s
and Havre, t h e r e was a head-on c o l l i s i o n between two t r a i n s .
Four of defendant's employees were k i l l e d and s e v e r a l o t h e r s
injured. One of those k i l l e d was p l a i n t i f f ' s husband, Gennaro
Torchia.
The movement of t r a i n s between Great F a l l s and Havre i s
c o n t r o l l e d out of t h e d i s p a t c h e r ' s o f f i c e i n Havre. Trains a r e
operated over t h i s segment of t h e t r a c k by t r a i n orders and
clearances. The Havre t o Great F a l l s route consists of b u t one
track, Thus, t h e orders and clearances are significant i n
c o n t r o l l i n g t r a i n movements where a "meet" i s a n t i c i p a t e d between
t r a i n s t r a v e l i n g i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s .
A d i s p a t c h e r i s s u e s various orders t o t h e operators a t
various s t a t i o n s on t h e l i n e . The orders a r e communicated
from the d i s p a t c h e r t o t h e operator by telephone. The o p e r a t o r
then copies t h e o r d e r s on t r a i n order forms. The o r d e r s a r e
then read back t o t h e dispatcher t o i n s u r e t h e copied o r d e r s
are correct.
I t i s a l s o the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e d i s p a t c h e r t o i s s u e
clearances which a r e communicated t o and copied by t h e operator
i n t h e same manner a s a r e t r a i n orders. A t r a i n i s n o t allowed
t o move over a t r a c k which i s c o n t r o l l e d by t r a i n orders and
clearances unless a proper clearance i s issued f o r t h e t r a i n move-
ment. Typically, orders and clearances a r e not issued u n t i l t h e
t r a i n has been "called", t h a t i s , assembled and ready f o r de-
parture. Generally, t h e conductor i n charge of t h e t r a i n and
crew picks up t h e orders and clearances from t h e operator. When
it becomes necessary t o i s s u e a second order and clearance on a
given t r a i n movement, t h e f i r s t orders and clearance a r e taken
up and destroyed.
-3-
I n 1971 i t was and had been f o r many years t h e p r a c t i c e
i n Havre f o r t h e operator t o place copies of t h e completed
clearances and orders on t h e t r a i n r e g i s t e r desk i n t h e Havre
Relay Office. There was no procedure whereby i t could be d e t e r -
mined when t h e orders were a c t u a l l y picked up by t h e conductor.
I n t h i s case Dispatcher Newel1 was on s h i f t from 7:30 a.m.
u n t i l 3:30 p.m. on May 11, 1971. He issued orders and a c l e a r -
ance a t 3:08 p.m. f o r t h e Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n , designated
a s "Extra 2013 West." Newel1 expected t h e t r a i n would be c a l l e d
momentarily. Operator Wirtzberger then placed the clearance and
orders on t h e t r a i n r e g i s t e r desk. A t t h a t time Newel1 was
unaware a t r a i n was being assembled i n Great F a l l s d e s t i n e d
f o r Havre, a l s o t o leave on May 11.
Newel1 turned over h i s dispatching d i s t r i c t t o Dispatcher
McMaster a t 3:30 p.m. Pursuant t o t h e then o p e r a t i v e "staggered
s h i f t " work system, McMaster who was on duty dispatching another
district was , i n a d d i t i o n , given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r Newell's
d i s t r i c t u n t i l 4:30 p.m. Newel1 explained t o McMaster t h a t he
had c l e a r e d t h e Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n . The clearance i s
r e f l e c t e d i n t h e clearance record kept by t h e d i s p a t c h e r . There
was no dispatching a c t i v i t y during t h e hour McMaster had responsi-
b i l i t y f o r t h e d i s t r i c t so no f u r t h e r e n t r i e s were made i n t h e
d i s p a t c h e r ' s book. A t t h e end of h i s s h i f t McMaster merely
i n i t i a l e d t h e record book and passed it on t o Dispatcher Magnuson.
There i s a d i s p u t e i n t h e evidence a s t o whether McMaster
v e r b a l l y informed Magnuson t h e Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n was
c l e a r e d when t h e dispatching d i s t r i c t was turned over t o him.
McMaster t e s t i f i e d he informed Magnuson of t h e clearance. Magnu-
son t e s t i f i e d no such statements were made. However, t h e r e i s no
d i s p u t e t h e records McMaster turned over t o Magnuson c l e a r l y
i n d i c a t e d t h e t r a i n had been c l e a r e d a t 3:08 p.m. by Newell.
Magnuson, during h i s dispatching s h i f t , was informed t h a t
a t r a i n would soon be leaving Great F a l l s bound f o r Havre. To
arrange f o r a "meet" between t h e r e s p e c t i v e t r a i n s whereby one
would take a s i d e t r a c k a s t h e o t h e r passed by, Magnuson issued
a second o r d e r and clearance a t 8:18 p.m. The second order and
clearance were communicated t o Operator P o r t e r , who prepared them
and placed them on t h e t r a i n r e g i s t e r desk.
Sometime between t h e time Operator Wirtzberger placed t h e
f i r s t order and clearance on t h e t r a i n r e g i s t e r desk and t h e
time t h e second order and clearance were placed on t h e desk,
Conductor Freeburg, conductor f o r "Extra 2013 West", came i n t o
t h e Havre Relay O f f i c e and picked up t h e f i r s t o r d e r s and c l e a r -
ance. He was not seen picking up t h e o r d e r s and clearance by any
d i s p a t c h e r o r operator.
P l a i n t i f f ' s husband, Gennaro Torchia, was a member of t h e
crew of t h e Great F a l l s t o Havre t r a i n . Under t h e second o r d e r s
issued t o t h a t t r a i n , b u t unknown t o Conductor-Freeburg of
"Extra 2013 West" and i t s crew, i t was t o proceed t o Portage: where
a "meet" would take place. The Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n was t o
wait a t Portage t o permit t h e Great F a l l s t o Havre t r a i n t o take
the siding.
The Havre t o Great F a l l s t r a i n passed t h e s i d i n g a t Portage
without stopping and, s h o r t l y beyond S h e f f e l s , t h e head-on c o l l i -
s i o n between t h e two t r a i n s occurred. Gennaro Torchia was k i l l e d
instantly. A t t h e time of h i s death he was 49 years of age.
Additional p e r t i n e n t f a c t s w i l l appear l a t e r i n t h i s opinion.
Defendant r a i s e s numerous p o i n t s of e r r o r on appeal. For
t h i s opinion we w i l l d i s c u s s e i g h t determinative i s s u e s :
1. Whether p u n i t i v e damages a r e recoverable i n an a c t i o n
under t h e FELA?
2. Whether t h e t v e r d i c t should be s e t a s i d e a s being excessive
and based on passion o r p r e j u d i c e ?
3. Whether t h e v o i r d i r e examination by counsel f o r
p l a i n t i f f was improper?
4. Whether admission of evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o f u t u r e
r a i l r o a d retirement b e n e f i t s was e r r o r ?
5. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n admitting c e r t a i n t e s t i -
mony given by p l a i n t i f f ' s expert witness i n t h e a r e a of economics?
6. Whether a p o t e n t i a l witness f o r defendant, whose name
was n o t listed on t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r , should have been permitted
to testify?
7. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n s e l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n s
and form of v e r d i c t ?
8. Whether admission i n t o evidence of a p o r t i o n of t h e
Federal Railroad Administration Accident r e p o r t was p r e j u d i c i a l
error?
I s s u e 1. A major contention of defendant i s t h a t p u n i t i v e
damages should n o t have been an i s s u e i n t h e c a s e , and evidence
and proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t e d t h e r e t o should not have been
permitted. Defendant a s s e r t s such i s s u e should have been removed
upon i t s motion t o s t r i k e . Defendant a l l e g e s p u n i t i v e damages
a r e n o t allowable under t h e FEU, and allowing p l a i n t i f f t o i n t r o -
duce proof n o t only of l i a b i l i t y , b u t a l s o on t h e question of
p u n i t i v e damages was p r e j u d i c i a l and r e s u l t e d i n an excessive award
a s a r e s u l t of passion and prejudice on t h e p a r t of t h e jury.
A s noted, defendant admitted i t s l i a b i l i t y f o r ordinary
negligence. A t t h e o u t s e t we r e j e c t defendant's theory t h a t upon
such an admission, p l a i n t i f f ' s case must be l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o
t h e i s s u e of damages. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s case p l a i n t i f f
could prove h e r case a s she wishes s u b j e c t , of course, t o t h e
ordinary c o n t r o l and d i s c r e t i o n exercised by t h e t r i a l judge.
Whether o r n o t evidence of p u n i t i v e damages&as a proper
p l a c e i n an a c t i o n under t h e FELA, t h e jury here refused t o
allow such damages t o p l a i n t i f f . I n view of t h e evidence pre-
sented by p l a i n t i f f and t h e r e s u l t reached by t h e j u r y , t h e
presence of t h e element of p u n i t i v e damages d i d not p r e j u d i c e
defendant i n t h i s case. S l i f e r v. Yorath, 52 Mont. 129, 155
P. 1113; Martin v. Corscadden, 34 Mont. 308, 86 P. 33. Further,
t h e same reasoning a p p l i e s with reference t o t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r
i n t h e giving of i n s t r u c t i o n s on w i l l f u l and wanton misconduct
and o t h e r matters r e l a t i v e t o p u n i t i v e damages. The s a l i e n t
f a c t remains t h e jury refused t o award such damages and, i n
f a c t , s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h e r e was no evidence of conduct which
would form t h e b a s i s f o r p u n i t i v e damages. Defendant s u f f e r e d
no p r e j u d i c e a s a r e s u l t . H i l l v. Chappel Bros. of Montana, I n c . ,
93 Mont.92, 18 P.2d 1106.
I s s u e 2. Was t h e jury v e r d i c t excessive and based upon
passion and p r e j u d i c e ?
Defendant a s s e r t s t h e r e must be s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e
record upon which t h e j u r y award can be p r e d i c a t e d , c i t i n g
Montana cases. While t h e r e was more than s u b s t a n t i a l evidence
i n t h e record t o j u s t i f y t h e j u r y ' s award, n e v e r t h e l e s s t h i s i s
n o t t h e a p p l i c a b l e standard under t h e Federal Employers' L i a b i l i t y
Act. I n Resner v. The N.P.Railway, 161 Mont. 177, 505 P.2d 86
(1973), t h i s Court quoted t h e standard a s s e t out i n Lavender v.
Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653, 66 S.Ct. 740, 744, 90 L ed 916, 923, a
Federal Employers' L i a b i l i t y Act case. There t h e United S t a t e s
Supreme Court s a i d :
I1 I
I t i s no answer t o say t h a t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t
involved speculation and conjecture. Whenever f a c t s
a r e i n d i s p u t e o r t h e evidence i s such t h a t f a i r -
minded men may draw d i f f e r e n t i n f e r e n c e s , a measure of
s p e c u l a t i o n and conjecture i s required on t h e p a r t
of those whose duty i t i s t o s e t t l e t h e d i s p u t e by
choosing what seems t o them t o be t h e most reasonable
inference. Only when t h e r e i s a complete absence of
probative f a c t s t o support t h e conclusion reached does
a r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r appear. But where *** t h e r e i s an
e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s f o r t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , t h e jury i s
f r e e t o d i s c a r d o r d i s b e l i e v e whatever f a c t s a r e i n -
c o n s i s t e n t with i t s conclusions. And t h e a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t ' s function i s exhausted when t h a t e v i d e n t i a r y
b a s i s becomes apparent, i t being immaterial t h a t t h e
c o u r t might draw a c o n t r a r y inference o r f e e l t h a t an-
o t h e r conclusion i s more reasonable. ' (Emphasis added. )"
161 Mont. 183.
P l a i n t i f f ' s evidence of damages was almost e n t i r e l y uncon-
tradicted. Through t h e testimony of v a r i o u s witnesses, p l a i n t i f f
e l i c i t e d f a c t s and f i g u r e s which, when p r o j e c t e d i n t o t h e f u t u r e
and discounted t o p r e s e n t v a l u e , would reasonably support a v e r -
d i c t such a s was rendered i n t h i s case. The t r i a l judge agreed
t h e v e r d i c t was not u n j u s t and a new t r i a l was not granted t o
defendant. W r e f u s e t o d i s t u r b t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e j u r y ,
e
I s s u e 3. This i s s u e involves a l l e g e d improper v o i r d i r e
examination of prospective j u r o r s by counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f . Nothing
a t a l l appears i n t h e record suggestive of t h e statements a t t r i b u t e d
t o counsel. The law i s c l e a r t h a t unless t h e r e i s a record of
t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r , t h i s Court w i l l not consider t h e matter. Kipp
v. Willoughby, 1 6 1 Mont. 432, 506 P.2d 1365; Nissen v. Western
Construction Equipment Co., 133 Mont. 143, 320 P.2d 997, Defendant's
argument i n t h i s regard i s without merit.
I s s u e 4. Did t h e t r i a l court e r r i n allowing t h e testimony
of p l a i n t i f f ' s w i t n e s s , J u d i t h Kirkness, an employee of t h e
United S t a t e s Railroad Retirement Board, concerning retirement
benefits? The core of defendant's argument i s t h a t t h e witness
was asked t o make c e r t a i n assumptions, while t h e f a c t s forming
t h e b a s i s f o r such assumptions were n o t of record o r i n evidence.
The record shows t h a t , a t some time i n advance of t r i a l ,
defense counsel v e r b a l l y s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e evidence t o be
e l i c i t e d from witness Kirkness. I n f a c t , he had so s t i p u l a t e d
i n a previous FELA a c t i o n . However, immediately before t h e
i n s t a n t t r i a l , defense counsel informed counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f
Burlington Northern had assigned a Minnesota a t t o r n e y t o d i r e c t
t h e case f o r defendant and a s a r e s u l t t h e p r i o r s t i p u l a t i o n
was no longer v a l i d . He then suggested p l a i n t i f f c a l l Judy
Kirkness a s a witness. W note a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t such t a c t i c s
e
on t h e p a r t of t h e new counsel a r e s t r o n g l y disapproved by
t h i s Court.
The proposed evidence and t h e procedure t o be employed i n
developing it was discussed i n chambers and f u l l y considered
by t h e t r i a l judge. The witness was t o determine t h e amount
of b e n e f i t s Gennaro Torchia would have been e n t i t l e d t o upon
retirement from t h e r a i l r o a d . The f a c t o r s t o be considered
i n a r r i v i n g a t such a computation a r e t h e employee's age,
m a r i t a l s t a t u s , l e n g t h of employment, r a t e of compensation, and
length of m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e . These f a c t s p e r t a i n i n g t o Gennaro
Torchia, were s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n evidence and presented i n a
c o r r e c t fashion t o t h e witness f o r h e r determination. The
r e s u l t i n g testimony was properly admitted a s i t was based upon
evidence before t h e c o u r t . Graham v. Rolandson, 150 Mont. 270,
435 P.2d 263; Burns v. F i s h e r , 132 Mont. 26, 313 P.2d 1044.
I s s u e 5. Defendant a l l e g e s e r r o r i n t h e admission by t h e
t r i a l c o u r t of testimony of p l a i n t i f f ' s economic e x p e r t , D r .
George P. H e l i k e r , on t h e i s s u e of economic l o s s s u f f e r e d a s a
r e s u l t of t h e d e a t h of Gennaro Torchia. I t i s argued t h e e x p e r t
opinions were s p e c u l a t i v e on f u t u r e i n f l a t i o n a r y t r e n d s , i n
f o r e c a s t i n g l o s s of e a r n i n g s , i n f o r e c a s t i n g f u t u r e e a r n i n g s
without c o n s i d e r i n g t h e impact of income t a x e s t h e r e o n , and
i n f o r e c a s t i n g l o s s of f u t u r e Railroad Retirement B e n e f i t s .
Proof of t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e of a f u t u r e economic l o s s i s
n e c e s s a r i l y u n c e r t a i n t o a degree. Any d e t e r m i n a t i o n of f a c t o r s
such a s growth i n t h e s i z e of t h e t o t a l l a b o r f o r c e , o u t p u t
p e r m a d h o u r , wage t r e n d s and i n f l a t i o n a r y p a t t e r n s i s a d m i t t e d l y
grounded i n p r o b a b i l i t i e s . However, t h i s does n o t mean t h e
amount of a f u t u r e l o s s i s n o t provable. Such l o s s e s a r e b e s t
proved through employment of economic and s t a t i s t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e s ,
a p p l i e d t o t h e very f a c t o r s l i s t e d above, a s t h i s Court h a s
recognized i n numerous p r i o r d e c i s i o n s . Where, a s h e r e , t h e
testimony of a s p e c i a l i s t p r e s e n t s a j u r y w i t h a reasonable
b a s i s upon which t o e s t i m a t e , w i t h some degree of c e r t a i n t y ,
t h e probable f u t u r e l o s s e s occasioned by t h e d e a t h of decedent,
such testimony should be admitted. Resner v. The N.P. Railway,
s u p r a ; Krohmer v. Dahl, 145 Mont. 491, 402 P.2d 979. See
Lavender v. Kurn, s u p r a , f o r a g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n of t r e n d s i n -
volving s p e c u l a t i o n and c o n j e c t u r e i n a s c e r t a i n i n g damages i n
FELA a c t i o n s .
Defendant was aware, p r e t r i a l , t h a t p l a i n t i f f intended t o
call D r . H e l i k e r t o t e s t i f y t o p r e c i s e l y t h o s e m a t t e r s defendant
now d i s p u t e s . The o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t e s t t h e accuracy of such
testimony, through i t s own e x p e r t testimony, was a v a i l a b l e t o
defendant. However, it chose n o t t o c a l l an e x p e r t w i t n e s s on
these matters.
- 10 -
I s s u e 6. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n excluding t h e t e s t i -
mony of d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed w i t n e s s S. M. Smiland, w i t h r e s p e c t
t o insurance b e n e f i t s , wages, damages, e t c . ?
W emphasize h e r e t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y
e
and d i s c u s s i o n was had i n t h i s c a s e , d u r i n g which t h e i d e n t i t i e s
of a l l w i t n e s s e s were d i s c l o s e d and l i s t e d i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r .
However, t h e name of S.M. Smiland f i r s t appears following
p l a i n t i f f ' s case-in-chief. There i s no record p l a i n t i f f knew
w i t n e s s Smiland, o r t h a t he was p r e s e n t i n Great F a l l s d u r i n g
a p o r t i o n of t h e t r i a l . He was never introduced t o p l a i n t i f f
and p l a i n t i f f was a f f o r d e d no o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a l k t o Smiland
b e f o r e h i s proposed testimony was t o begin. Under t h e circum-
s t a n c e s , i t was c e r t a i n l y w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l
judge t o a l l o w o r d i s a l l o w t h e w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y . Sanders v.
Mount Haggin Livestock Co., supra.
I s s u e 7. T h i s i s s u e concerns i n s t r u c t i o n s given and r e f u s e d
by t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
C o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 14 and No. 20 were o b j e c t e d t o
by defendant on t h e grounds a decedent f a t h e r ' s comfort, pro-
t e c t i o n , s o c i e t y , education and companionship a r e n o t proper
elements o f damage r e c o v e r a b l e under t h e FELA. Instruction
No. 14 provides i n p a r t :
"You may a l s o c o n s i d e r and award such sum a s you
may determine r e p r e s e n t s t h e pecuniary v a l u e of
any l o s s , i f any, s u s t a i n e d by t h e widow and t h e
family by reason o f being deprived of Gennaro T o r c h i a ' s
comfort, p r o t e c t i o n , s o c i e t y , e d u c a t i o n and companion-
s h i p . I n c o n s i d e r i n g such pecuniary l o s s , you may
c o n s i d e r t h e age and l i f e expectancy of t h e w i f e and
family i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e age of t h e decedent, t h e
d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e deceased, whether i t was k i n d l y ,
a f f e c t i o n a t e , o r o t h e r w i s e , t h e degree of intimacy
e x i s t i n g between t h e deceased and h i s f a m i l y , t h e i r
s t a t i o n i n l i f e , and such o t h e r f a c t s shown by t h e
evidence which may throw l i g h t upon such l o s s which
t h e h e i r s reasonably might have expected t o r e c e i v e
from t h e deceased, had he l i v e d . ** *'I
I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20 s t a t e s :
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t :
"You have h e r e t o f o r e been i n s t r u c t e d on damages
which may be allowed t o wife and family f o r t h e
death of Gennaro Torchia. One of t h e elements
of such damage i s t h e pecuniary value of t h e
s o c i e t y , comfort, c a r e , companionship, p r o t e c t i o n
and education t h e wife and family have l o s t by
reason of h i s death. I f you f i n d from t h e evidence
t h a t t h e deceased d i d provide s o c i e t y , comfort,
c a r e , companionship, p r o t e c t i o n and education,
which went t o t h e moral o r physical t r a i n i n g and
well-being of t h e widow and family, t h i s l o s s i f
it has ,pecuriiary o r . f i n a n c i a l v a l u e , may be
measured and compensated. *'I**
I t i s t r u e damages under t h e FELA a r e measured by and
l i m i t e d t o t h e pecuniary l o s s sustained by t h e survivors
a s a r e s u l t of t h e death of t h e employee. Mellon v. Goodyear,
277 U.S. 335, 48 S.Ct. 541, 72 L ed 906; Michigan C e n t r a l R.
Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57 L ed 417.
Recovery i s authorized only t o t h e e x t e n t t h e survivors a r e
shown t o have been deprived of a reasonable expectation of
f i n a n c i a l b e n e f i t s , a s s i s t a n c e o r support. Mellon v. Goodyear,
supra; See Anno: 67 ALR2d 745,746. However, t h e pecuniary value
a s s o c i a t e d with t h e l o s s of p a r e n t a l c a r e , guidance and education
t h e decedent would expectably have given h i s minor c h i l d r e n ,
i s recoverable under t h e FELA. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v.
Holbrook, 235 U.S. 625, 35 S.Ct. 143, 59 L ed 392; Michigan
Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, supra.
I n determining t h e e x t e n t of c o n t r i b u t i o n which i s
reasonable t o be a n t i c i p a t e d by t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s , t h e j u r y
may properly consider evidence t h e decedent was i n d u s t r i o u s ,
t h r i f t y , kind and f a i t h f u l t o h i s family. Allendorf v. Elgin,
J o l i e t & Eastern R. Co., 8 I11.2d 164, 133 N.~.2d 288, 79 A L R ~ ~
241, c e r t . den. 352 U.S.833, 77 S.Ct. 49, 1 L ed 2d 53, reh.den.
352 U.S. 937, 77 S.Ct. 219, 1 L ed 2d 170.
Contained within t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 14 and No. 20
i s language having t h e e f f e c t of l i m i t i n g recovery t o t h e
pecuniary value of l o s s e s sustained. F u r t h e r , t h e language
speaks t o l i m i t i n g l o s s e s t o Chose which t h e survivors reason-
ably might have expected t o receive from decedent, had he l i v e d .
P l a i n t i f f ' s evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e x t e n t of t h e l o s s of
p a r e n t a l c a r e , guidance and education was ample and uncontra-
d i c t e d , a s was t h e evidence demonstrating t h e decedent was i n -
d u s t r i o u s , t h r i f t y , kind and f a i t h f u l t o h i s family.
Thus, while t h e r e may have been minor v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n s from t h e accepted measure of damages i n FELA a c t i o n s ,
they cannot be s a i d t o have prejudiced t h e defendant. The
i n s t r u c t i o n s were n o t t o t a l l y confined t o an FELA death a c t i o n ,
t h e r e being v a r i a t i o n s b u t on those v a r i a t i o n s no evidence was
adduced a t t r i a l . W f i n d no prejudice.
e
Defendant a l s o o b j e c t s t o t h e giving of c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n
No. 19, which provides:
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t :
"In considering t h e l o s s of c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e
family from f u t u r e earnings of decedent you a r e
i n s t r u c t e d t h a t you should f i r s t reduce f u t u r e
earnings t o present value using a reasonable r a t e
of discount f o r t h i s purpose. The evidence a s t o
annual i n f l a t i o n which has an e f f e c t on d e p r e c i a t i n g
t h e value of a d o l l a r should a l s o be considered a s
t o what e x t e n t such d e p r e c i a t i o n o f f s e t s t h e i n t e r e s t
t h a t could be earned on an award of f u t u r e earnings.
I n a d d i t i o n , you may consider wage i n c r e a s e s t h e
deceased might have expected t o receive i n a r r i v i n g
a t deceased's t r u e l o s s of f u t u r e earnings and
earning capacity."
A s previously pointed o u t , t h i s Court approves of considera-
t i o n by t h e jury of t h e f a c t of i n f l a t i o n i n a r r i v i n g a t an
award f o r l o s s of f u t u r e earnings, where t h e evidence a s t o
annual i n f l a t i o n and r e l a t e d matters i s presented, a s h e r e , i n
a competent manner. Resner v. The.N.P. Railway, supra.
The t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n
No. 8 a s being d u p l i c i t o u s . ' W f i n d i t t o have been p r o p e r l y
e
r e f u s e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
The c o u r t a l s o r e f u s e d t o g i v e d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed i n s t r u c -
t i o n s No, 14, No. 15 and No. 16, on c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e impact
of income t a x e s on damage awards. I n so doing, t h e t r i a l c o u r t
was i n accord w i t h t h e weight of a u t h o r i t y , Future income t a x
l i a b i l i t y i s n o t a proper c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n an award f o r l o s s of
future earnings. Bracy v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 136 Mont. 65,
343 P.2d 848.
Defendant r e l i e s on Burlington Northern, I n c . v. Boxberger,
529 F.2d 284 (1975), f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t f u t u r e t a x l i a b i l i t y
should be considered i n making a damage award. A careful
reading of Boxberger, however, d i s c l o s e s t h a t i t i s an admitted
d e p a r t u r e from t h e m a j o r i t y p o s i t i o n . The c o u r t t h e r e i n s t a t e d
r h a t an i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e e f f e c t of f u t u r e income t a x l i a b i l i t y
i s proper when competent evidence i s brought f o r t h a t t r i a l
showing t h e l i k e l y amount of t a x . Defendant h e r e h a s made no
such showing. ,
A f u r t h e r o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d by defendant was t o t h e form
of t h e v e r d i c t approved by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h a t i t i n c l u d e s
items of compensatory damage n o t contemplated under t h e FELA,
The same reasoning employed regarding d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c t i o n t o
c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 14 and No. 20 i s no l e s s a p p l i c a b l e i n
t h i s instance. Defendant was n o t p r e j u d i c e d by t h e form of v e r d i c t
i n t h i s case.
I s s u e 8. This i s s u e concerns t h e p r o p r i e t y of admission i n
evidence of conclusions contained i n t h e F e d e r a l Railroad Adminis-
t r a t i o n Report of i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e t r a i n wreck of May 11,
1971. 45 U.S.C.541 states:
" N e i t h e r t h e r e p o r t r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 38 of t h i s t i t l e
n o r any r e p o r t of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n provided f o r i n
s e c t i o n 40 of t h i s t i t l e n o r any p a r t t h e r e o f s h a l l b e
admitted a s evidence o r used f o r any purpose i n any
s u i t o r a c t i o n f o r damages growing o u t of any m a t t e r
mentioned i n s a i d r e p o r t o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n ."
During t r i a l c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f r e a d i n t o t h e r e c o r d ,
b e f o r e t h e j u r y , a v e r b a t i m copy of c e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n s c o n t a i n e d
i n t h e a c c i d e n t r e p o r t , which were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e complaint.
Counsel was a l s o p e r m i t t e d , over o b j e c t i o n , t o r e a d t o t h e j u r y
an i n t e r r o g a t o r y t o defendant and t h e amended answer t h e r e t o .
The answer a l s o c o n t a i n e d a c c i d e n t r e p o r t c o n c l u s i o n s . In neither
c a s e was t h e r e p o r t i t s e l f made a p a r t of t h e r e c o r d . A t no time
was t h e j u r y informed t h e s t a t e m e n t s b e i n g read were t a k e n from
t h e a c c i d e n t r e p o r t o r based on f i n d i n g s o f t h e F e d e r a l R a i l r o a d
Administration.
T h i s Court does n o t condone such a method of b r i n g i n g poten-
t i a l l y objectionable material before the jury. However, h e r e t h e
e r r o r , i f any, was harmless. The m a n i f e s t purpose of t h e p r o h i b i -
t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n i s t h e p r e v e n t i o n of t h e u s e i n evidence of a
r e p o r t which, being i s s u e d by a f e d e r a l agency, h a s t h e outward
appearance of being c o n c l u s i v e on t h e f a c t s . The e v i l t o be
avoided i s t h e undue weight t h e j u r y would g i v e t o t h e r e p o r t ,
denominated a s such, over o t h e r evidence produced a t t h e t r i a l .
Here, i t was d e f e n d a n t ' s own answer t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r y ,
produced a t t r i a l , which was t h e v e h i c l e f o r i n t r o d u c t i o n i n
evidence of c e r t a i n of t h e r e p o r t c o n c l u s i o n s . W cannot s e e
e
how t h i s procedure, given t h e o t h e r evidence produced i n t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , p r e j u d i c e d defendant i n a s u b s t a n t i a l manner.
The judgment e n t e r e d upon t h e v e r d i c t of t h e j u r y i s
affirmed.
on.. J ~ ~ H M~ o r t F ,D i s t r i c t
.
Judge,w* t i n g f o r M r . Chief
slt
J u s t i c e Paul G. Hatfield.
We Concur:
/i Justices.