Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TENTH CIRCUIT
JUN 4 1998
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOSEPH F. WIECZOREK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation,
No. 97-1154
(D.C. No. 95-B-1528)
(District of Colorado)
Defendant - Appellee.
Mr. Wieczorek appeals from a jury verdict, contending that the district
court erred by instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate
damages. Alternatively, he argues that the mitigation instruction was plainly
erroneous. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
Plaintiff stated at trial that he sought counseling from the State of Colorado
Department of Rehabilitation. A rehabilitation counselor employed by the
Department testified by video deposition that his notes taken during plaintiffs
intake interview stated: [plaintiff] is not sure that the [Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation (DBR)] will be needed once he gets his settlements. He
primarily came to DBR on the advice of his lawyer. Dep. of Charles L. Lackey
at 34-35, in II Trial Tr., pt. 1. The jury was entitled to interpret from this
evidence that plaintiffs efforts to seek vocational counseling and employment
were less than genuine.
This court has stated in the FELA context:
An unemployed plaintiff who is able to look for work does not
satisfy his duty to mitigate by waiting passively for employment to be
offered. The opportunity to mitigate is not merely the opportunity to
accept a job, but the opportunity to seek appropriate work when one
is able to do so. If that opportunity is shown to have existed, the
issue of mitigation should not normally be prevented from reaching a
properly instructed jury.
Wilson, 56 F.3d at 1232 (emphasis added). From the evidence in the record, the
jury could properly find that an opportunity to seek appropriate work existed.
Because [t]he question whether the conduct of plaintiff was reasonable effort in
the circumstances was a question of fact for the jury under proper instructions,
Trejo, 568 F.2d at 184, the district court did not err in submitting a mitigation
instruction to the jury.
-4-
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-5-