S-24-0960 Chaylea Cramer (Appellee/Cross-Appellant) v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (Appellant/Cross-Appellee)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Leigh Ann Retelsdorf
Attorneys: Cathy S. Trent-Vilim (Lamson Dugan & Murray, LLP for Appellant), Torry N. Garland and Betsy Seeba-Walters (Union Pacific Railroad Company for Appellant), and Corey L. Stull and Nolan J. Niehus (Atwood Law, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellee)
Civil: Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA)
Proceedings below: Appellee was injured at work while she was employed by Appellant, and she sued under FELA. Appellee was found to be ninety-five percent (95%) negligent, and Appellee was found to be five percent (5%) negligent, and a jury awarded Appellee damages. The district court overruled Appellee’s motions for new trial, directed verdict, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and it also overruled Appellant’s motion to alter or amend. On its own motion, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Nebraska Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) The district court erred in denying Appellant’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment to reduce the amount of the verdict in accordance with Appellee’s percentage of fault; and 2) The district court erred when it denied Appellant’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment to reduce the amount of the verdict by the amount of short-term disability payments paid to Appellee.
On cross-appeal, Appellee assigns the following errors: 1) The district court erred in submitting Appellant’s affirmative defense of apportionment of damages to the jury; 2) The district court erred in denying Appellee’s motion for a new trial as a result of erroneously submitting Appellant’s apportionment defense to the jury; 3) The district court erred in submitting Appellant’s affirmative defense of comparative fault to the jury; 4) The district court erred in denying Appellee’s motion for a new trial as a result of erroneously submitting Appellant’s comparative fault defense to the jury; and 5) The district court erred in finding Dr. Scott McMullen lacked the foundation to testify to Appellee’s lost work life expectancy.