ILNews

Court: Collateral source rule applies in railroad award

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Contributions from a railroad company to a federal disability fund cannot be used to reduce the amount of a plaintiff's recovery, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today.

In a 30-page decision in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Robert D. Gardner, No. 49A02-0610-CV-917, the court affirmed a trial judge's decision to not allow the railroad company to use its $35,000 annual contributions to a disability and retirement fund to lower the jury-imposed amount of $605,500 in damages for Gardner's injuries.

He was working as a locomotive engineer in May 2003 when he was thrown from the train, injuring his neck, back, and right knee, which impacted his ability to work. He began receiving the $35,000 annual annuity at the end of that year through the Railroad Retirement Act fund. He also filed a complaint against CSX under the Federal Employers' Liability Act alleging negligence and won the jury award.

CSX argued it's entitled to setoff because it is being required to pay twice for Gardner's lost wages, while Gardner argued his disability annuity comes from a "collateral source" and shouldn't be regarded as payment from the railroad company.

In denying the request for setoff, Marion Superior Judge Gerald Zore cited the Supreme Court of the United States decision of Eichel v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 375 U.S. 253 (1963) as controlling. That ruling held benefits under such a retirement or disability system like the RRA are not directly attributable to the contributions of the employer and can't be considered in mitigation of the damages caused by an employer.

Questions before the appellate judges were whether the RRA disability annuities are from a collateral source, and whether that amount, to the extent that CSX paid taxes to the fund based on Gardner's employment, should be setoff from the jury's FELA award.

The appellate judges looked at an array of caselaw from other states and federal jurisdictions, as well as Congressional intent, in deciding against the railroad company.

"We conclude that the fact that CSX contributed to the RRA Fund because of statutory requirement, and not as a voluntary attempt to insulate itself from liability for its negligence, weighs in favor of concluding that payments Gardner receives from the RRA Fund are from a collateral source," Judge Margret Robb wrote for the panel, which also included Judges Cale Bradford and Nancy Vaidik

The court also considered Congressional action in this area in not addressing setoff because of the RRA, saying, "that gives rise to the inference that Congress is satisfied with the courts' decisions disallowing setoff."

"We recognize that as a result of the trial court disallowing setoff, Gardner has been made more than whole," she wrote. "This situation is common under the collateral source rule, and CSX's argument that such overcompensation is unjust is not persuasive. The solution to overcompensation is not to reduce a negligent employer's liability."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT