Document: 470 U.S. 409 105 S.Ct. 1347 84 L.Ed.2d 303 ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANYv.Robert Wayne DICKERSON. No. 84-914. March 4, 1985. PER CURIAM. 1 In this case, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's refusal to instruct jury in Federal Employers' Liability Act case that its award plaintiff should reflect present value any future losses sustain. Because such an instruction is required as matter federal law, we reverse. 2 On December 11, 1978, respondent, railroad policeman, was permanently disabled fall from car he inspecting for evidence vandalism. Alleging result petitioner's negligence, brought suit under (FELA), 35 Stat. 65, amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., Circuit city St. Louis. Respondent introduced his wage resulting injuries would, over course lifetime, amount somewhere neighborhood $1 million. 3 Petitioner requested judge submit following instruction: 4 "If you find favor Plaintiff and decide make loss earnings future, must take into account fact money awarded by being received all at one time instead period extending will have use lump sum. You must, therefore, determine or worth which loss." 5 The refused because not provided Approved Instructions promulgated Supreme FELA cases. Accordingly, instructions on damages were limited following: 6 issues plaintiff, then sum believe fairly justly compensate sustained reasonably certain sustain 1978 mentioned evidence. Any subject income tax." 7 found negligence respondent million damages. 8 affirmed. 674 S.W.2d 165 (1984). Rejecting contention failure error, court held present-value inappropriate law. ruling accord with two previous opinions holding do call cases, may be given. Bair v. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 647 507 (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Burlington Northern Inc. Bair, 464 830, 104 107, 78 109 (1983); Dunn 621 245 (1981) Co. Dunn, 454 1145, 102 1007, 71 298 (1982). 9 As general matter, cases adjudicated state courts are procedural rules, but substantive law governing them federal. Although Court's decisions area "point up impossibility laying down precise rule distinguish 'substance' 'procedure,' " Brown Western Alabama, 338 294, 296, 70 105, 106, 94 L.Ed. 100 (1949), it settled propriety concerning measure action issue "substance" determined Norfolk & Liepelt, 444 490, 493, 755, 757, 62 689 (1980). entitled cannot dismissed ground Instructions. Whether been given question. 10 Not only question, also existing provides clear answer. Nearly years ago, defendant instructed "when payments other pecuniary benefits anticipated, verdict made basis their only." Chesapeake Ohio Kelly, 241 485, 491, 36 630, 632, 60 1117 (1916). rationale simple: 11 "The equivalent compensation deprivation reasonable expectation would resulted continued life deceased. . So far based upon benefits, afford more than if aggregating without taking earning power presently awarded. It self-evident hand like payable future." Id. 489, S.Ct., 631. 12 We never disapproved Kelly rationale. Courts rely definitive statement applicable see, e.g., Beanland Chicago, R.I. P.R. 480 F.2d 109, 115 (CA8 1973), ourselves recently reaffirmed our adherence Kelly's principle awards suits governed value. See Jones Laughlin Steel Corp. Pfeifer, 462 523, 536-537, 103 2541, 2550-2551, 76 768 (1983). decision makes no single method determining mandated calculating inflation sources increases well rate interest, equally utter proper error. courts' allow juries thus odds petition writ certiorari therefore granted, judgment 13 Reversed. 14 Justice POWELL took part consideration case. 15 MARSHALL, dissenting. 16 I continue object deciding granting either party opportunity argue merits brief oral argument. dissent.

Category: 7