Opinion ID: 2531907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Failure to Mitigate

Text: CSX next argues that it established, as a matter of law, that Miller failed to mitigate his damages after his retirement in March 2003 and, therefore, that the trial court erred in allowing him to recover lost wages after that date. A FELA plaintiff claiming lost wages has a duty to reasonably mitigate his damages. See Wilson v. Union Pacific R.R., 56 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir.1995); Broadus, supra; Russell v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 189 F.3d 590, 596 (7th Cir.1999). The duty to mitigate damages arises after a party has suffered injury, loss, or damage. See Avco Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ramsey, 631 So.2d 940 (Ala.1994) (noting that a party who has suffered injury, damage, or loss must take reasonable steps to reduce it); Piche v. Nugent, 436 F.Supp.2d 193, 204 (D.Me.2006) (`A plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages arises after he or she has suffered an injury or loss ....' (quoting Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., 878 A.2d 509, 521 (Maine 2005))). Once it is established that a FELA plaintiff has a duty to mitigate his or her damages, the FELA defendant has the burden of proving that the plaintiff, with reasonable, effort could have mitigated his or her damages. Jones v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F.2d 590 (6th Cir.1986). Not only must the defendant establish that the plaintiff failed to seek employment, but the defendant must also show that appropriate jobs were available. Wilson, supra . Generally, the question whether an employee acted reasonably to mitigate his or her damages is a question for the jury. Trejo v. Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R., 568 F.2d 181, 184 (10th Cir.1977); Hawkins v. 1115 Legal Serv. Care, 163 F.3d 684 (2d Cir.1998). Miller's duty to mitigate his damages arose in July 2002, after Dr. Raymon had diagnosed his neck condition, and performed surgery to correct the condition, causing Miller to first lose time from work. Ramsey, supra ; Piche, supra . Miller satisfied his duty to mitigate his damages when he returned to his employment with CSX in September 2002 and worked until he retired in March 2003. However, CSX states that Miller failed to mitigate his damages after March 2003, because, it says, by his own admission he made no effort to find any type of employment after March 2003. CSX relies upon Hansard v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., 865 F.2d 1461, 1468 (5th Cir.1989), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an employee was not entitled to backpay because, by his own admission, he stopped looking for work. A plaintiff may not simply abandon his job search and continue to recover back pay. Miller's duty to mitigate his damages was ongoing. See Howard Johnson Int'l, Inc. v. Inn Dev., Inc., (No. 07-1024-RHB, September 11, 2009) (D.S.D.2009) (not reported in F.Supp.2d). Generally, the duty [to mitigate damages] persists as long as damages are suffered and may reasonably be mitigated. Schwartz v. NMS Indus., Inc., 575 F.2d 553, 556 (5th Cir.1978). We note the following testimony as to the issue of mitigation: Q [By CSX's counsel]. Okay. Now, you were the one who made the decision to retire and to not work anymore, right? A [By Miller]. Yes, sir. I made that decision based on the pain I was having in my neck. Q. Okay. And you've made no effort to find alternative employment since you've retired, have you? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Now, CSX has a vocational rehabilitation program, don't they? A. I have no idea. Q. Okay. You're not aware of a vocational rehabilitation program? A. No, sir. Q. Did you make any effort to try to find another job within CSX since you retired? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Have you made any effort to try to find a job outside CSX? A. No, sir. Q. You've not made any effort to try to find any job since you retired, right? A. No, sir. Q. And after your retirement, the fact of the matter is, you have no desire to get another job either within the railroad or outside the railroad with some other employer; isn't that right? A. And that's based on the pain in my neck. .... Q. Now, since your retirement you've not had any desire to go into any form of employment whether it would hurt your neck or not; isn't that true? A. No, sir, I haven't. Q. Okay. A. I haven't decided what jobs would hurt my neck or which ones wouldn't. I justI just hadn'tI decided I didn't want to work anymore due to my neck. Q. That's right. And over the last 5 years, since you retired, you've made no efforts to try to find another job whether it would hurt your neck or not, you've made no effort, right? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. And the reason for that is you just intend to enjoy your retirement, right? A. I think I mentioned that in my deposition. Q. You did. Didn't you tell me A. I also just can't work due to my neck. Although Miller testified that he did not pursue any employment after he retired in March 2003, his testimony, viewed as a whole, creates a question of fact for the jury as to whether Miller could have reasonably mitigated his damages by continuing to work with his neck condition. Further, as for Miller's duty to mitigate his damages by seeking other employment at CSX, it was incumbent upon CSX to show that other appropriate jobs were available. Wilson, supra . CSX failed to establish that other appropriate jobs were available for Miller. The record indicates that the only job suggested by CSX that Miller could perform was that of a switchman. Miller acknowledged that he was the most senior worker in Pensacola at the time of his retirement and that he could have returned to work as a switchman but that did not do so because he did not know what the effect [of] switching would have on [his] neck. Additionally, Allerellie testified that Miller's neck condition made him a safety hazard and unsuitable for the position of switchman. Accordingly, based on the evidence presented in this case, we cannot say that the trial court erred in not entering a JML for CSX on the issue of mitigation and instead submitting that issue to the jury.