Court of Appeals Digest: March 11.

Byline: admin

Civil Published

Railroads

Judgment

Three railroad employees sued their employer, respondent railroad, for personal injuries caused when their locomotive seats collapsed. Respondent filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution and/or indemnity from the seat manufacturers, appellants. Respondent settled with the three employees, and its contribution claims against appellant went to trial. The jury's special verdict determined that appellant and respondent both violated the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) and their violations caused each employee's injuries. Respondent then moved to amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. 549.09, subd. 1. Over appellant's opposition, the District Court awarded prejudgment interest, and concluded that respondent was entitled to prejudgment interest from the date that it commenced its consolidated third-party action against appellant. Appellant raised three issues on appeal.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) when a defendant/third-party plaintiff in a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) action prevails on its claim for contribution and receives a money judgment, the third-party plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. 549.09, subd. 1(b); and (2) prejudgment interest for a judgment of contribution damages is computed as provided in Minn. Stat. 549.09, subd. 1(b), and runs from the date the damages were incurred, not from the date the contribution action was commenced. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A18-0357 Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. (Hennepin County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa180357-031119.pdf

Civil Unpublished

Civil Commitment

SDP; Discharge

Appellant is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality. He petitioned for a transfer, a provisional discharge, or a full discharge. The special review board recommended that his petition be denied. He requested rehearing and reconsideration by the judicial appeal panel with respect to his requests for a provisional discharge or a full discharge. After the first phase of an evidentiary hearing, the judicial appeal panel granted a motion to dismiss his petition. The Court of Appeals concluded that the judicial appeal panel did not err because appellant did not produce evidence during the first-phase hearing that was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that he was entitled to a provisional discharge or a full discharge. Affirmed.

A18-1532 In re Civil Commitment of Branson (Judicial Appeal Panel)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa181532-031119.pdf

Damages

Collateral Sources

Appellant, who was injured in a car accident caused by respondent, appealed the District Court's denial of her motions for a new trial and a Schwartz hearing. Appellant further challenged the District Court's application of the collateral-source statute and calculations for cost-shifting under Minn. R. Civ. P. 68. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court properly offset medical expense personal injury protection benefits and wage loss personal injury protection benefits appellant received from her automobile insurance carrier. Furthermore, respondent was entitled to cost-shifting, a new trial was not warranted, and appellant's allegation that a juror lied by concealing a prior felony did not require a Schwartz hearing. Affirmed.

A18-0358, A18-0742 Moshier v. Jarvis (Wright County)

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2019/OPa180358-031119.pdf

Defamation

Statements

Appellant challenged the dismissal of his defamation claim, arguing that the District Court erred by determining that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not allege that respondent chief executive officer (CEO) made the statements contained in a corporate press release. The Court of Appeals held that the allegation that respondent merely reviewed statements that another wrote and authorized and approved their release on behalf of a business did not state...