Burckhard v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 15-2106 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against BNSF for the deaths of two BNSF employees. Plaintiffs' suit arises under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq. The jury found in favor of plaintiffs and the district court subsequently denied BNSF's motion to alter or amend the judgment based on an agreement that plaintiffs had entered with BNSF prior to trial. BNSF moved the district court to enter judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) based on plaintiffs' failure to offer any evidence that BNSF should have or could have foreseen the conduct that caused the harm, and plaintiffs' failure to offer any expert testimony to establish the standard of care applicable to BNSF for crew calls and train movements. The court concluded that it has no basis to review BNSF's foreseeability argument because it challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and was not renewed in a Rule 50(b) motion; BNSF was required to, but did not, renew in a Rule 50(b) motion its contention that lay testimony was insufficient to establish a standard of care and that expert testimony was required; the court rejected BNSF's claims of evidentiary errors; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying BNSF's motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) where the district court found that the agreement that was the basis for BNSF's claimed setoff was collateral to the merits of plaintiffs' FELA action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges, and Gritzner, District Judge] Civil case - Federal Employers' Liability Act. In action alleging defendant, through its agent had negligently operated the vehicle used to transport plaintiffs' decedents, had negligently failed to train its driver and had failed to take adequate protective measures, the court could not review the Railroad's argument that the accident was not reasonably foreseeable because it did not renew its argument in a Rule 50(b) motion after the jury returned its verdict; the question of whether expert testimony concerning the applicable standard of care was required to support the jury's finding of negligence was a factual question which had to be preserved in a Rule 50(b) motion and the court could not consider the Railroad's argument that lay testimony alone was insufficient to establish a standard of care; various evidentiary challenges rejected; the district court did not err in denying the Railroad's Rule 59(e) motion as the claim that the recovery should be offset by a payment made under a benefit agreement between the plaintiffs and the Railroad relied on a matter which was collateral to the merits of plaintiffs' FELA action. Judge Smith concurring.
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.