Opinion ID: 491690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Reasonableness of Railroad's Settlement

Text: 35 If Newsome was hurt at the chip pit while removing an empty hopper, and the chip pit was causally related to the accident, then Paper must indemnify Railroad if its settlement was reasonable. The jury found that $125,000 reasonably compensated Newsome for his injury. In support of the settlement amount, Nat Hovious testified that Railroad relied on Newsome's wages, benefits, and work life expectancy. Dr. Rowlett's letter stated that the injury permanently prevented Newsome from working as a brakeman or switchman. This evidence is ample to support the jury's finding that the sum paid in settlement was a reasonable one. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. 36 In determining whether the settlement was reasonable, Paper argues that the district court should have permitted the jury to consider the likelihood that Newsome would have prevailed against Railroad in his FELA action. Given the testimony of Newsome that he slipped on the chip pit while manually uncoupling cars, we are persuaded that the district court was entitled to find as a matter of law that Railroad had potential liability to Newsome and was reasonable in negotiating a settlement with him. 3 Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Hughes Brothers, Inc., 671 F.2d 279, 282-83 (8th Cir.1982); see also Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc. v. Barge Chem, 546 F.2d 1125, 1129-30 (5th Cir.1977).