## Facts

- Fred D’Amato worked as an assistant conductor for the Long Island Railroad Company.
- In the early morning of March 15, 1991, D’Amato was throwing track switches in the Hempstead railroad yard so his assigned train could move out of service.
- As a train passed, D’Amato turned to avoid a spray of sparks, tripped over a piece of railroad equipment left alongside the tracks, and fell.
- Over the following period, D’Amato missed 36 weeks of work.
- D’Amato underwent two outpatient surgeries: one to release a compressed ulnar nerve and another to relieve carpal tunnel syndrome.
- Despite repeated examinations, diagnostic testing, and physical therapy, D’Amato continued to report pain and clumsiness in his right hand and pain in his elbow, back, and neck.
- D’Amato and his wife testified that his injuries affected his mood and daily life, including depression and limits on household chores, outdoor activities, and his ability to sit for extended periods.
- D’Amato sued the railroad for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
- After a jury trial, the jury found the railroad negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of D’Amato’s injuries; it also found D’Amato 15% at fault and found his injuries permanent.
- The jury awarded $800 for past out-of-pocket expenses, $25,000 for lost earnings, $75,000 for past pain and suffering, and $60,000 for future pain and suffering, for a total of $160,800 before reduction for comparative fault.
- The railroad moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial based on allegedly excessive damages, or alternatively sought remittitur; it relied in part on other cases with lower awards for similar injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s damages award (especially pain and suffering) was so grossly excessive that the court should order a new trial under Rule 59(a) or reduce the award through remittitur.

## Decision

- The court denied the railroad’s Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial.
- The court denied the railroad’s alternative request for remittitur.
- The jury’s damages award remained in place, subject to the 15% reduction for D’Amato’s comparative negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 59(a), a court may grant a new trial (or order a remittitur as an alternative) when a damages verdict is against the weight of the evidence or so excessive that it “shocks the conscience” or results in a miscarriage of justice.
- Pain-and-suffering damages and future damages are primarily for the jury; a trial judge should not replace the jury’s valuation absent a clear showing that the award is irrational or plainly unsupported by the record.
- Evidence of ongoing symptoms, functional limits, medical treatment (including surgery), and the jury’s express finding of permanency can support substantial awards for past and future pain and suffering.
- Comparisons to awards in other cases may be considered, but they do not set binding ceilings; damages depend on the specific proof of injury and impact in the case being tried.
- A jury’s comparative-fault finding reduces the defendant’s liability percentage and is part of the overall damages framework when evaluating whether the defendant’s share is excessive.

## Conclusion

Because the trial record supported the jury’s findings that D’Amato suffered lasting injury with continuing pain and daily-life limitations following a work-related fall and two surgeries, the court held the $160,800 damages verdict (before the 15% comparative-fault reduction) did not “shock the conscience” and refused to grant a new trial or remittitur under Rule 59(a).


D'Amato v. Long Island Railroad Company, 874 F. Supp. 57 (1995)