Defendant's Attorney: Beck S. Fineman

Description: New York, New York personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued defendant on a Federal Employers' Liability Act.

Domingo Ojeda, a police officer for the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (“MTA”), sued the MTA under the Federal
Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), alleging that the MTA negligently
failed to provide him with a safe workplace when it sent him on patrol
in a vehicle without a prisoner compartment. A jury found the MTA
liable and awarded Ojeda damages. The MTA moved for judgment
as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that it is
immune from liability pursuant to the governmental function defense
and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because
it lacked expert testimony. The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied that motion, holding that the
governmental function defense does not apply in FELA cases.

* * *

Plaintiff-Appellee Domingo Ojeda was employed as a police
officer by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), the
defendant-appellant in this case. While patrolling a railroad station,
Ojeda witnessed an incident between a man and a woman in the
station’s parking lot. After intervening and discovering that the manhad an open order of protection against him, Ojeda handcuffed the
man. The arrestee fled, and Ojeda injured himself in pursuit.
Ojeda sued the MTA under the Federal Employers’ Liability
Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51, alleging that the MTA’s negligence—
including its failure to provide him with a prisoner compartment in
his patrol car—caused his injuries. A jury ruled in favor of Ojeda and
awarded him damages. On appeal, the MTA argues that it is immune
from liability pursuant to the governmental function defense and
that, in any event, it cannot be held liable without expert testimony.
The district court rejected these arguments when it denied the MTA’s
motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Outcome: We hold that the FELA does not abrogate the governmental
function defense, and therefore the defense is available in FELA cases.
The defense does not apply on the merits in this case, however,
because the MTA has failed to show that it performed a discretionary
governmental function when committing the allegedly negligent acts.
Additionally, we hold that expert testimony was not required in this
case. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: