Koger v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, No. 1:2008cv00909 - Document 143 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 84 Plaintiff's MOTION in Limine to bar any evidence, interrogation, or argument regarding plaintiff's alleged comparative negligence and denying 98 Defendant's MOTION in Limine to preclude plain tiff from referencing or arguing that defendant was solely at fault for the incident at issue. Determining who was at fault for the accident and to what degree is an issue for the jury to decide. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/12/2009. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD LARRY L. KOGER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-0909 NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are (1) plaintiff s motion in limine to bar any evidence, interrogation, or argument regarding plaintiff s alleged comparative negligence and (2) defendant s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from referencing or arguing that defendant was solely at fault for the incident at issue. (Docs. # 84 and 98). Defendant contends that it has evidence to present regarding plaintiff s fault in the accident and that, because of this, plaintiff should not be allowed to argue that defendant was solely at fault. Plaintiff argues that, pursuant to § 45 U.S.C. § 53, defendant s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 240.305 bars the defense of comparative negligence. For reasons expressed in its Memorandum Opinion and Order of October 2, 2009, and to be expressed in the forthcoming Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff s motion for reconsideration, the court has rejected and continues to reject plaintiff s argument on this point. Plaintiff further contends that there is evidence to rebut defendant s position that plaintiff was somehow at fault for the accident and that, therefore, defendant was solely at fault. Determining who was at fault for the accident and to what degree is an issue for the jury to decide. Accordingly, both motions are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to all counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of November, 2009. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
