Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03361/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03361-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

... 

FIL L•"'D 

· • J~ f A poab UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Sta~s C~!1rt C? p Tenth C1rcu1t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES J. TERSINER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ) 

) 

Defendant-Cross-Claimant- ) 

Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MICHAEL GRETENCORD, d/b/a Penn's Apco, ) 

) 

Defendant-Cross-Claim ) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT 3 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3361 

(D.C. No. 89-2299-V) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3361 Document: 010110092985 Date Filed: 10/30/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff, James J. Tersiner, sued his employer, defendant 

Union Pacific Railroad Co., under the Federal Employers' Liability 

Act, 45 u.s.c. SS 51-60 (FELA), for injuries received on the job. 1 

Union Pacific crossclaimed against Michael Gretencord based on the 

Kansas doctrine of contributory implied indemnity. The jury 

awarded total damages of $123,809.00 and found that Tersiner was 

66% negligent, Union Pacific was 17% negligent, and Gretencord was 

17% negligent. The district court entered judgment for Tersiner 

and against Union Pacific in the amount of $42,095.06, taking into 

account Tersiner's comparative fault. On appeal, Tersiner 

challenges the district court's contributory negligence and 

assumption of risk jury instructions. 

Tersiner, as part of his job with Union Pacific, was assigned 

to obtain ice and water for a work crew. The ice and water were 

obtained from Gretencord's business, Penn's Apco service station. 

On one occasion while obtaining the ice and water, Tersiner stood 

on a wooden pallet. His shoe slipped through one of the slats in 

the pallet, and he fell, injuring his shoulder. 

Tersiner commenced this action in district court. 

Thereafter, 

The only issue on appeal concerns the correctness of the jury 

instructions. Tersiner argues that, because Union Pacific's 

defense suggested he assumed a risk, the contributory negligence 

instruction was error. 

In reviewing jury instructions, the instructions must be 

considered as a whole. Weqerer v. First Commodity Corp., 744 F.2d 

1 

law 

as a 

Tersiner also initially sued Michael Gretencord under a state 

theory of negligence. Gretencord subsequently was dismissed 

defendant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3361 Document: 010110092985 Date Filed: 10/30/1991 Page: 2 
719, 723 (10th Cir. 1984). Upon proper request, a party is 

entitled to an instruction supporting its theory of the case if 

there is evidence to support the theory. The defendant 

employer in a FELA case therefore is entitled to an instruction on 

contributory negligence if there is evidence to support such a 

theory. Wise v. Union Pac. R.R., 815 F.2d 55, 57 (8th Cir. 1987). 

The employer has the burden of proving contributory negligence, 

Birchem v. Burlington N. R.R., 812 F.2d 1047, 1049 (8th Cir. 

1987), and must do so by presenting affirmative evidence of 

contributory negligence, Borough v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range 

BY.=_, 762 F.2d 66, 69 (8th Cir. 1985). 

FELA mandates that an employee's recovery be reduced by any 

part of his injury caused by his own contributory negligence. 45 

u.s.c. § 53. FELA, however, precludes an employee's assumption of 

risk as a defense to a claim of injury allegedly resulting from 

the employer's negligence. Id. at S 54. 

Although there is some overlap between assumption of 

risk and contributory negligence, generally the two 

defenses are not interchangeable. At common law an 

employee's voluntary, knowledgeable acceptance of a 

dangerous condition that is necessary for him to perform 

his duties constitutes an assumption of risk. 

Contributory negligence, in contrast, is a careless act 

or omission on the plaintiff's part tending to add new 

dangers to conditions that the employer negligently 

created or permitted to exist. 

Taylor v. Burlington N. R.R., 787 F.2d 1309, 1316 (9th Cir. 

1986)(citations omitted). Thus, contributory negligence is 

present when the employee's actions create additional danger to 

any danger caused by the employer's negligence. 

Transp .• Inc., 890 F.2d 989, 991-92 (7th Cir. 1989). 

3 

Gish v. CSX 

Appellate Case: 90-3361 Document: 010110092985 Date Filed: 10/30/1991 Page: 3 
In this case, the evidence warranted a contributory 

negligence instruction. Based on the evidence presented, the jury 

could reasonably find that Tersiner's action added additional 

danger to the situation. The evidence showed that railroad 

workers did not typically stand on the pallet when obtaining ice 

and water. Rather, they used a safer alternative of standing on 

the cement next to the pallet and placing their water containers 

on the pallet while filling the containers. Furthermore, because 

Tersiner stood on the pallet instead of the cement, he violated 

the railroad safety rules indicating that an employee must 

maintain firm footing and a clear view and avoid areas potentially 

dangerous for slipping or tripping. Tersiner even admitted to 

Gretencord that the fall may have been partially his fault. The 

jury could reasonably find and did find that Tersiner, by standing 

on the pallet, rather than the concrete, acted negligently. 

Tersiner further argues that the district court should have 

instructed the jury that Union Pacific could not delegate its duty 

to provide him with a safe place to work. He claims that such an 

instruction would clarify the difference between contributory 

negligence and assumption of risk by indicating Union Pacific 

assumed the risks inherent in the work place. 

It is settled that an employer has a nondelegable duty to use 

reasonable care to provide a safe work environment. Security Ins. 

Co. v. Johnson, 276 F.2d 182, 187 (10th Cir. 1960). The district 

court instructed the jury that Union Pacific had a duty to use 

"reasonable care to provide its employees with a safe place to 

work" and instructed the jury regarding assumption of risk and 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-3361 Document: 010110092985 Date Filed: 10/30/1991 Page: 4 
. . ' 

contributory negligence. These instructions appropriately 

instructed the jury on the differences between the two defenses 

and prevented the jury from considering an assumption of risk 

defense while permitting it to make factual findings on 

contributory negligence. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-3361 Document: 010110092985 Date Filed: 10/30/1991 Page: 5