# Bair v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

> Supreme Court of Missouri · March 29, 1983 · 647 S.W.2d 507

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682542

## Case

- **Full name:** James C. BAIR, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** March 29, 1983
- **Citations:** 647 S.W.2d 507
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Blackmar, Welliver, Higgins, Billings, Morgan, Rendlen, Donnelly, Gunn
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682542

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing for the most part raises points which were presented in its briefs, but the motion does claim that the opinion is inconsistent with one point discussed in Dunn, which, according to the motion, held that defendants were precluded from arguing that an award for loss of future earnings should be reduced to present value. See 621 S.W.2d 245, 254 (Mo. banc 1981).
The holding in Dunn related to a combined argument about present value and income tax, under the assumption that Norfolk and Western Railway Company v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490 , 100 S.Ct. 755 , 62 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980), was not to be applied retroactively. We have now held to the contrary but felt that reversal is not required in this case.
Dunn should not be read as holding that argument on present value of a future loss is not proper. Recent cases recognize the admissibility of economic evidence in evaluating damages. Sampson v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., 560 S.W.2d 573, 587 (Mo. banc 1978); Raney v. Honeywell, Inc., 540 F.2d 932, 936 (8th Cir.1976). The issue of the present worth of a future loss could undoubtedly be presented on cross-examination of a claimant’s expert witness, or through an expert called by the defense. The fact that a dollar today is not the same thing as a dollar payable some years from now, furthermore, is the matter of plainest fact which could be appropriately argued without the need for expert testimony.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
RENDLEN, C.J., and GUNN and DON-NELLY, JJ., not participating.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682542. Public record. Not legal advice.