Trawick v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY

Missouri Court of Appeals

Trawick v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY

347 S.W.3d 176, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1135

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketED 95319

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 347 S.W.3d 176 (Trawick v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trawick v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, 347 S.W.3d 176, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1135 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carey Trawick (“Trawick”) appeals from the judgment in favor of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (“BNSF”) on Trawick’s action for personal injury under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 51, et seq. (“the FELA”). Trawick contends the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion for mistrial and his motion for a new trial after BNSF’s violation of Trawick’s motion in limine; (2) in denying his motion for a new trial based upon improper jury argument because BNSF contended Trawick failed to mitigate damages by failing to return to work with BNSF; and (3) in denying his motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Phillip Goad and Dr. David Hewitt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carey Trawick (“Trawick”) appeals from the judgment in favor of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (“BNSF”) on Trawick’s action for personal injury under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 51, et seq. (“the FELA”). Trawick contends the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion for mistrial and his motion for a new trial after BNSF’s violation of Trawick’s motion in limine; (2) in denying his motion for a new trial based upon improper jury argument because BNSF contended Trawick failed to mitigate damages by failing to return to work with BNSF; and (3) in denying his motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Phillip Goad and Dr. David Hewitt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 176, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trawick-v-bnsf-railway-company-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack