Wrongful Death – Jury Instructions

Listen to this article

The chief issue presented in this wrongful-death case is whether respondent railway company is entitled to a new trial on liability as a result of an allegedly erroneous instruction to the jury on the railroad’s duty of care.  The District Court instructed the jury, without objection from respondent, to apply a common-law or “reasonable person” standard of care.  After the jury returned a verdict in appellants’ favor, respondent moved for a new trial on several grounds, including that it could be held liable only if appellants proved that the railroad failed to comply with a different standard of care, namely, the standard of care established by applicable federal regulations.  A divided Court of Appeals concluded the District Court’s instruction to the jury and special verdict form using a common-law duty of care constituted plain error that substantially affected respondent’s rights and the fairness and integrity of the proceedings, and remanded the matter to the District Court for a new trial.

The Supreme Court held that (1) respondent is not entitled to a new trial because any error in the special verdict form and in the instructions to the jury on respondent’s duty of care did not affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings, and (2) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, improperly admitted evidence, or the instruction given to the jury on the adverse inference to be drawn from respondent’s failure to produce certain evidence at trial. Reversed.

A09-2212, A09-2213, A09-2214, A109-2215 Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. (Court of Appeals)

Click for Full Text