fela claim in Minnesota

2018Under a FELA claim in state court, "federal law governs all substantive matters, but procedural matters are subject to state procedural rules." Kinworthy , 860 N.W.2d at 357 ; see also Boyd v. BNSF Ry. , 874 N.W.2d 234 , 237 (Minn. 2016) ("More than 100 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that FELA occupies the field of railroad employees' personal injury claims against their employers in interstate commerce....

2018Under a FELA claim in state court, "federal law governs all substantive matters, but procedural matters are subject to state procedural rules." Kinworthy , 860 N.W.2d at 357 ; see also Boyd v. BNSF Ry. , 874 N.W.2d 234 , 237 (Minn. 2016) ("More than 100 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that FELA occupies the field of railroad employees' personal injury claims against their employers in interstate commerce....

2015See Johnson, 520 U.S. at 920 , 117 S. Ct. at 1806 (clarifying “outcome determinative” standard by stating that adjudications which avoid a “judicial determination of the merits of the claim” result in a different disposition for preemption purposes).

2015See Johnson, 520 U.S. at 920 , 117 S. Ct. at 1806 (clarifying “outcome determinative” standard by stating that adjudications which avoid a “judicial determination of the merits of the claim” result in a different disposition for preemption purposes).

2014Because FELA, like § 1983, requires “uniform application throughout the country” in order to “effectuate its purposes,” Dice, 342 U.S. at 361 , 72 S.Ct. at 314 , we must determine whether the outcome of a FELA claim in a Minnesota state court under rule 68.03 is sufficiently different from the outcome of a FELA claim in federal court that rule 68.03 is inconsistent with the federal interest in uniformly applying FELA.

2014Because FELA, like § 1983, requires “uniform application throughout the country” in order to “effectuate its purposes,” Dice, 342 U.S. at 361 , 72 S. Ct. at 314 , we must determine whether the outcome of a FELA claim in a Minnesota state court under rule 68.03 is sufficiently different from the outcome of a FELA claim in federal court that rule 68.03 is inconsistent with the federal interest in uniformly applying FELA.

2018Under a FELA claim in state court, "federal law governs all substantive matters, but procedural matters are subject to state procedural rules." Kinworthy , 860 N.W.2d at 357 ; see also Boyd v. BNSF Ry. , 874 N.W.2d 234 , 237 (Minn. 2016) ("More than 100 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that FELA occupies the field of railroad employees' personal injury claims against their employers in interstate commerce....

2018Under a FELA claim in state court, "federal law governs all substantive matters, but procedural matters are subject to state procedural rules." Kinworthy , 860 N.W.2d at 357 ; see also Boyd v. BNSF Ry. , 874 N.W.2d 234 , 237 (Minn. 2016) ("More than 100 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that FELA occupies the field of railroad employees' personal injury claims against their employers in interstate commerce....

2016Ry. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 511-12 (1915) (“As long as the question involves a mere matter of procedure . . . the state court can . . . follow [its] own practice . . . .”); Kinworthy, 860 N.W.2d at 357 (“When a plaintiff chooses to bring a FELA claim in state court . . . federal law governs all substantive matters, but procedural matters are subject to state procedural rules.”).

2016Ry. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 511-12 (1915) (“As long as the question involves a mere matter of procedure . . . the state court can . . . follow [its] own practice . . . .”); Kinworthy, 860 N.W.2d at 357 (“When a plaintiff chooses to bring a FELA claim in state court . . . federal law governs all substantive matters, but procedural matters are subject to state procedural rules.”).

2014Burnquist v. Miller Home Dev., 243 Minn. 1, 7 , 65 N.W.2d 900, 904 (1954) (holding that “costs and disbursements” are a “procedural element” separate from the concept of “just compensation” under the Minnesota Constitution)." Unlike prejudgment interest, an award of costs and disbursements under rule 68.03 does not add to the compensatory-damages tied to the underlying FELA claim.

2014Burnquist v. Miller Home Dev., 243 Minn. 1, 7 , 65 N.W.2d 900, 904 (1954) (holding that “costs and disbursements” are a “procedural element” separate from the concept of “just compensation” under the Minnesota Constitution)." Unlike prejudgment interest, an award of costs and disbursements under rule 68.03 does not add to the compensatory-damages tied to the underlying FELA claim.

2001On appeal, 3 the court of appeals affirmed the district court, holding “that the LIA preempts state common-law claims for contribution or indemnity based on design and construction asserted by a railroad carrier against a locomotive manufacturer.” Eng-vall v. Soo Line R.R., 617 N.W.2d 444, 448 (Minn.App.2000) (Engvall II).

2000Soo Line argues that indemnity does not require common liability but arises “where the one seeking indemnity has incurred liability because of a breach of duty owed to him by the one sought to be charged” or “where the one seeking indemnity has only a derivative or vicarious liability for damages caused by the one sought to be charged.” See Tolbert v. Gerber Indus., Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362, 366 (Minn.1977) (citation omitted).

1986Dutton v. Southern Pacific Transportation, 576 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Texas 1978).

1986Dutton v. Southern Pacific Transportation, 576 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Texas 1978).

1986Cf Funseth v. Great Northern Railway Co., 399 F.2d 918, 922-23 (9th Cir.1968) (“sparse version” of proximate cause instruction not reversible error where followed by Rogers instruction on FELA standard of causation).

1986Cf Funseth v. Great Northern Railway Co., 399 F.2d 918, 922-23 (9th Cir.1968) (“sparse version” of proximate cause instruction not reversible error where followed by Rogers instruction on FELA standard of causation).