United States Eighth Circuit

In a negligence action brought under the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court has broad discretion in choosing the language of jury instructions and thus did not abuse its discretion in its instructions to the jury on negligence and contributory negligence; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the railroad to introduce evidence that plaintiff was discharged for misconduct as plaintiff opened the door with his own testimony; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence concerning absences as it was relevant to credibility; and 4) the court did not err in granting summary judgment for railroad on plaintiff's Locomotive Inspection Act claim as the evidence showed the locomotive was not in use at the time plaintiff was injured.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/29/2009
• Published 07/29/2009

Judges

• SMITH, Circuit Judge., Before MURPHY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LIMBAUGH, District Judge.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Michael T. Blotevogel, argued, Charles W. Armbruster, III, on the brief, Wood River, IL, for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• John P. Lord, argued, St. Louis, MO, Joel D. Johnson, Fort Smith, AR, on the brief, for appellee.