c




 

 

The F.E.L.A test for a decision by the jury essentially requires one to simply test whether the
negligence of the employer, given the proof, properly justify with the reason if the injury
caused can be attributed to the employer. So basically all that is required is to establish a link
between the injury and the employer, regardless of however slight the nexus between both
might be. 1

The problem argues that this test is tilted in favour of the µvictim¶ as the Court cannot help
but use this test while entertaining a plea of J.N.O.V. Essentially this test renders the purpose
of a J.N.O.V redundant as the Court is still confined within the µslight¶ boundaries of the
F.E.L.A test.

When the State Appellate Court entertains a motion which looks into whether the J.N.O.V
granted by the Trial Court is valid or not, it is just needed to determine the sufficiency of
evidence.2 However all that the appellant has to do is to show the Court that there exists more
than a ³scintilla of evidenceu of evidence to establish his claim.3

Thus the decision of the Court is hinged on determining whether there is substantial proof to
show that Garrison suffered from his condition since birth, i.e. the same did not develop
subsequent his taking the policy. The just µmore than a scintilla of evidence¶ in this case will
be the testimony of the psychiatrist hired by Garrison. Also the requirement to construe the
evidence in favour of the non-moving party will influence the decision of the Court. The
Court will be forced to override the decision of the Trial Court simply because of the
testimony of the psychiatrist, as it will be deemed to constitute the required proof as under the
F.E.L.A test. One cannot help but feel helpless at the absurdity of the situation as even though
the Appellate Court might be convinced that there does not exist substantial proof to validate
the claim of injury, however they will be incapable of doing anything as the burden of proof
envisaged by the F.E.L.A test is ever so µslight¶.

The alternate test that I propose obviously envisages a higher burden on the supposed
µvictim¶. Firstly, the test will do away with the requirement that mandates the Court to view
the evidence in favour of the non-moving party. My test will require the Courts to view
evidence from both sides equally. The only requirement will be that of sufficiency.

1
Wilkins v. CSX Transportation Inc. 2008 WL 5212727 (N.C.App. Dec. 16, 2008)
2
Rogers v. Norfolk Southern,
3
Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
Further µsufficient evidence¶ as per the test I propose will be higher than in F.E.L.A. My test
will require substantial evidence that will draw a direct nexus between the injury caused and
the role of the employer. Basically, just µmore than a scintilla¶ of proof will not be enough.

For example in order to entertain a plea of J.N.O.V the Court will need first need to take into
account if the party moving for the verdict has been able to establish that the verdict by the
jury was unfair and partial. Essentially, they will need to establish that the verdict of the jury
was totally unconnected to evidence in question. The test will mandate that the decision of
the jury must draw a direct and substantial nexus between the evidence presented by both
sides and the award for damages. In absence of the same a motion for J.N.O.V can be
entertained. The evidence in question must substantially, beyond all reasonable doubt,
establish and justify the decision of the jury.

In the current case it is obvious that does not exist enough evidence to prove that Fred
Garrison suffered from schizophrenia et. al. since birth. The only evidence that exists is the
testimony of a psychiatrist hired by them. On the other hand his work record coupled with the
testimony of the two psychiatrists appearing for State Farm create reasonable doubt about the
Fred Garrison¶s genetic predisposition towards schizophrenia.

Arguendo, even if Fred did suffer from the genetic condition there is not enough evidence to
prove the same. Under my test there needs to be substantial proof which established beyond
reasonable doubt the existence of such a condition (and a singular testimony does not
constitute µsubstantial¶).

Thus a motion for J.N.O.V must be validated by the appellate Court as the decision of the
jury is in contravention of the evidence present (as per my test).