http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/10/tuesdays-argument-in-norfolk-southern-v-sorrell/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:42:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/10/tuesdays-argument-in-norfolk-southern-v-sorrell/#comment-10496 Jake Roberts Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:36:42 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/tuesdays-argument-in-norfolk-southern-v-sorrell/#comment-10496 It is actually unknown whether "[t]he jury concluded...that Norfolk Southern had not" met its burden with regard to contributory negligence. In an FELA case in Missouri, the jury is not required to make specific findings of each party's percentage of fault, nor whether the plaintiff was actually found to be contributorily negligent. The jury in its private deliberations, determines whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if necessary, reduces the award accordingly. Therefore, with this general verdict it is unknown whether the total damages was $1.5M and no contributory negligence was found, or whether the total damages was higher and then reduced. It is actually unknown whether “[t]he jury concluded…that Norfolk Southern had not” met its burden with regard to contributory negligence. In an FELA case in Missouri, the jury is not required to make specific findings of each party’s percentage of fault, nor whether the plaintiff was actually found to be contributorily negligent. The jury in its private deliberations, determines whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if necessary, reduces the award accordingly. Therefore, with this general verdict it is unknown whether the total damages was $1.5M and no contributory negligence was found, or whether the total damages was higher and then reduced.

]]>