Opinion ID: 2531907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CSX's Proposed Jury Charges

Text: CSX submitted the following proposed jury charges relating to the issue of apportionment: DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 38. Defendant is entitled to apportion damages between the various causes of a Plaintiff's injury, including pre-existing conditions. Based on the evidence in this case, you should determine what percentage of Plaintiff's present condition was caused by the injuries sustained as a result of his age, smoking, and genetics, if any, what percentage was caused by the negligence of the Defendant, if any, and what percentage was caused by Plaintiff's own negligence, if any. DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 39. You must not award damages to Plaintiff for injuries that he sustained as a result of other causes including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's age, smoking, genetics, and other non-railroad activities. You must only award the amount of damages that occurred as a direct result of Defendant's negligence. If you find that Plaintiff's injury was due in part to his age, smoking, genetics, or other non-railroad activities, you should determine the portion or percentage of Plaintiff's injury that was so caused. DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 40. If you find that the Plaintiff's age, smoking, genetics, or other non-railroad activities may have caused him harm, you should not consider any loss caused by such age, smoking, genetics, or other non-railroad activities nor should you award the Plaintiff any damages that were caused by the Plaintiff's age, smoking, genetics and non-railroad activities. .... DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 41. If you find for the Plaintiff, you may award him monetary compensation only for the extent of the injury caused by the Defendant in the course of the Plaintiff's occupational activities while he was employed by the Defendant. If the Plaintiff has a pre-existing injury or condition, then you should compensate him only for the aggravation of the preexisting injury or condition and not the entire injury itself. If you find that there has been an aggravation of a pre-existing condition you should, if possible, decide what portion of the Plaintiff's present condition resulted from the aggravation and only award him damages for that percentage of his injury in your verdict. The trial court refused to give the jury charges proposed by CSX; instead, the trial court charged the jury on the issue of apportionment as follows: The preexistence of the condition in the Plaintiff which serves only to make him more or less susceptible to the infliction of the injury in question, does not affect the damages to which he is entitled. So if you find for the Plaintiff, you may award him monetary compensation only for the extent of the injury proximately caused by the Defendant's negligence or violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act or safety regulation. If the Plaintiff has a preexisting injury or condition, then you should compensate him only for the aggravation of the preexisting injury or condition and not the entire injury in itself. If you find that there has been an aggravation of a preexisting condition, you should, if possible, decide what portions of the Plaintiff's present condition resulted from the aggravation and only award him damages for that percentage of his injury in your verdict. If, however, you cannot separate the injuries caused or exacerbated by the accident from those resulting from a preexisting condition, then the Defendant is liable for all of such injuries. The proposed charges submitted by CSX were not a correct statement of the law on the issue of apportionment. Although the proposed charges correctly instructed the jury that when a defendant's negligence merely aggravates or exacerbates a plaintiff's preexisting condition, the defendant is liable only for the aggravation or exacerbation of the preexisting condition proximately caused by the defendant's negligence and not the entire injury itself, the proposed charges failed to instruct the jury that if it were unable to separate the injury caused or exacerbated by the defendant's negligence from the injury resulting solely from a preexisting condition then it should compensate the employee for the whole injury. Stevens, 97 F.3d at 603. The charge given to the jury by the trial court included an almost verbatim statement of CSX's proposed charge no. 41, which informed the jury that a defendant is liable only for the aggravation or exacerbation of a preexisting condition proximately caused by the defendant's negligence and not the entire injury itself. The trial court's charge to the jury also included the proposition of law set forth in Stevens, supra , that if the jury was unable to separate the plaintiff's injury caused or exacerbated by the defendant's negligence from the injury resulting from preexisting conditions then the employee should be compensated for the whole injury. The charge given the jury by the trial court was a correct statement of the applicable law. In addition to being a correct statement of the applicable law, the charge given the jury by the trial court was supported by the evidence in this case. Miller was diagnosed with degenerative disk and spine disease. Dr. Raymon and Dr. Kelley testified that repetitive trauma and vibrating forces, such as those Miller was exposed to riding freight trains, can contribute to degenerative disk and spine disease. Both Dr. Raymon and Dr. Kelley opined that the working conditions aboard the freight trains contributed to Miller's degenerative disk disease, and Dr. Raymon specifically stated that Miller's working conditions aboard the trains aggravated or precipitated his symptoms and contributed to his clinical presentation and symptoms. Dr. Dawkins, on the other hand, attributed Miller's degenerative disk disease to other causes. Dr. Dawkins opined that Miller's symptoms were the result of his age and his history of smoking and nothing more, and that Miller's working conditions aboard the freight trains did not contribute to Miller's symptoms. The split in the evidence as to causation provided a basis for the jury's inability to apportion liability for Miller's injury between CSX's alleged negligence in failing to provide a safe working environment and Miller's age and his history of smoking. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to give CSX's proposed jury charges on apportionment and further find no error with regard to the apportionment instruction actually given to the jury by the trial court.