substantial a part of [the] defendant’s potential liability under the FELA” to be properly characterized as procedural. Id. at 336, 108 S.Ct. at 1843. That prejudgment interest is computed based on the size of the damage award and the enhanced judgment allowed under rule 68.03(b)(2) is computed based on the prevailing plaintiffs costs and disbursements is all the more reason that Minnesota’s rule must yield to FELA preemption. In effect, and as applied here, rule 68.03(b)(2) is purely punitive against a party who opted to try the case rather than settle it. The award under rule 68.03(b)(2) bears no relationship whatever to the damages authorized by Congress to be recovered under FELA. See Am. R.R. of Porto Rico v. Didricksen, 227 U.S. 145,149-150, 33 S.Ct. 224, 225, 57 L.Ed. 456 (1913) (<HOLDING>); see also Local 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs &
holding that damages in a fela action are limited strictly to the financial loss thus sustained overturning a jury award for the loss of society and companionship holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss recognizing loss of society damages as remedy available under general maritime law holding award that included damages for loss of enjoyment of life not excessive