Croswell et al vs Union Pacific Railroad et al;, No. 3:2008cv00445 - Document 70 (D. Nev. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Ds' 50 Motion in Limine. FURTHER ORD that Ds' first motion in limine is DENIED. The court also expects further briefing on the issue in Ds' first motion in limine during the selection of jury instructions. This ruling is without prejudice to potential jury instructions. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/23/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 ; 2 JUIS ? ,j 3 4 5 .u.. 6 UNITED STATES DISTR ICT CO URT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA s 8 9 JOHN S.CROSW ELL,111,and LINDA C. 3:08-CV-0O445-RCJ-(VPC) C RO SW ELL, 10 Plaintiff, O RD ER 11 V. 12 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COM PANY,et 13 al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Thisisapersonalinjur 'yclaim forwork-relatedinjuries.PlaintiffsJohnS.Croswelland 17 Linda C.Croswellsued DefendantsUnion PacificRailroad Co.(''union Pacific''),M-ISwaco, 18 M-IDrilling Fluids InternationalInc.,M-l,L.L,C.,a Nevada Iimited liability company,and M-1, 19 L.L,C.,a Delawarelimited Iiabilitycompany(collectively,'Defendantsn),alleging negligence Croswell et al vs Union Pacific Railroad et al; Doc. 70 20 underthe FederalEmployers'Liability Act,45 U.S.C.jj 51 etseq.($'FELA''),state-law 21 negligence,and Iossofconsortium . Presently before the Courtis Defendantsfirstmotion in 22 Iimine (see //50). Plaintiffs have opposed Defendants'motion (#58).The Courtheard oral 23 argumenton June 11,2010. The Courtnow issues the following order. Defendants' 24 motioninIimineisDENIED,Thedenialiswithoutprejudicetopotentialjuryinstructions.The 25 Courtinvitesfurtherbriefingontheproperjuryinstructionsrelatingtotheissuesinthismotion. 26 27 1. BACKGROUND The nature ofPlainti#s'case is asfollows. M r.Croswellworked forUnion Paci fic as 28 abrakeman.(Compl.(#1)!(12).OnAugust7,2007,hewasridingUnionPacific'strainwhile 1 Dockets.Justia.com l workinginM-IindustrylpremisesIocatedinBattleMountain,Nevada.(/d.).Mr.Croswellwas 2 riding onthe side ladderofa boxcar. (Id.at:113). The train rounded a curve and headed 3 towardsstacked Ioading palletsthatwere placed too closetothe track. (Id.j.Mr.Croswell 4 could notsee the pallets in tim e to avoid them because his view was obstructed due to the 5 curve in the track. (/d.). He could notclimb to the top ofthe box carto avoid the pallets 6 becausethegrabbarsonthe boxcardid notgo up highenough.(Id.j.Therewasnowhere 7 he could safelyjump. (Id.j.Mr.Croswellcollided withthe palletsandsu#ered injuries.(Id. 8 atW 13-15). 9 Plaintiffs sued Defendants, alleging that Union Pacific is Iiable under the Federal 10 Em ployers'Liability Actfor negligence and strict Iiability for failing to conform to Nevada 11 regulations and Nevada Public Service Com m ission orders. Plaintiffs also allege thatUnion 12 Pacific and M -Iare liable forcom mon-law negligence and thatM -Iis Iiable forM rs.Croswell's 13 Iossofconsodium. (Compl.(//1)). 14 Union Pacific answered and asserted a cross-claim againstM -l. Union Pacific alleges 15 thatitis entitled to indem nification from M -Iunderan express agreem entand underequitable 16 principlesand,alternatively,entitledtocontributionfrom M-I.(Am.Ans.(#19)6:8-9:21).M-I 17 also answered Plainti:s'complaint.(Ans.(#16)). 18 19 lI. LEGAU STANDARD 'Although the FederalRules ofEvidence do notexplicitlyauthorize in Iim ine rulings,the 20 practice has developed pursuantto the districtcourt's inherentauthorityto m anage the course 21 oftrials.''Luce v' .United States,469 U.S.38,41n.4 (1984).2 Coudshave broad discretion 22 whendecidingmotionsinIimine.Mason v.CityofChicago,631F.Supp.2d 1052,1055(N.D. 23 111,2009). Evidence may beexcluded only ifitis inadmissible onaIIpotentialgrounds, Id. 24 25 IThe pjrliesdo notcaryfullydistinguish the variously-named M-ldefendants. For 26 purposes ofthls m em orandum ''M-I''refers to aIIthe M -Idefendants, 11 2''lnjurycases,proceedingsshallbe conducted,to the extentpracticable,so asto preventinadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any meansjsuch as 28 making statementsoroffersofprooforasking questions in thehearingofthejury.'Fed.R. Evid.1O3(c). 2 l Otherwise,the evidentiary ruling m ust be deferred untiltrial. /d.at 1055-56. The party 2 m oving to exclude has the burden of show ing the evidence is inadm issible for aI1potential 3 purposes. Id.at1056, 4 111.A NALYSIS 5 6 7 8 9 In Plaintiffs'second cause of action,they assertthat Nevada A dm inistrative Code ïj705.030and705.062arestatutesthatare incorporated into the FELA through45 U.S.C. jj53 and 54a.(Compl.(#1):118).Defendantsarguethatjj705,030and 705,062 do not constitute statutes under45 U.S.C.jj 53 and 54a. Plaintiffs argue thatDefendants are attempting a 'backdoor''motion forsummaryjudgmenton this issue and thatthe Nevada 10 regulations should be considered ''statutes.' ll Section 53 establishes a com parative negligence regim e foractions againstrailroads 12 w ith a proviso thatan em ployee's negligence shallnotdim inish his recovery ifthe railroad's 13 violation ofa ''statute enacted forthe safetyofemployeescontributed tothe injury ordeath 14 ofsuchemployee.''45 U.S.C.553. 15 ''A regulation,standard,or requirem ent in force, or prescribed by the Secretary of 16 Transportation underchapter 201 ofTitle 49,or by a State agency thatis participating in 17 investigative and surveillance activities undersection 20105 ofTitle 49 is deem ed to be a 18 statuteundersections53and54ofthistitle.''45 U.S.C.j54a.Undersection20105ofTitle 19 49, 'ljhe Secretary concerned may prescribe investigative and surveillance activities 20 necessaryto enforce the safety regulations prescribed and orders issued bythe Secretary that 21 apply to railroad equipm ent,facilities,rolling stock,and operations in a State. The State m ay 22 participate in those activitiesw hen the safetypracticesforrailroad equipm ent,facilities,rolling 23 stock,and operations in the State are regulated by a State authority and the authority subm its 24 totheSecretaryconcerned anannualcedification ....''49 U.S.C.j 2O105(a). 25 ''Section54aofTitle45andsection2O105(a)ofTitle49,whentheyarereadtogether, 26 m ake clearthatstate regulations,requirem ents,etc.,are deem ed federalsafety regulations 27 onlywhenthey make the state a padicipantin the enforcementofsuch regulations.''Fletcher 28 1.ChicagoRailLink,L.L.C.,568 F.3d638,639(7thCir.2009).'Section54arequirestreating 3 l state regulations that support or im plem ent federalsafety norm s as if they were federal 2 regulations,butthere is no basis forthinking thatthe statute goes furtherthan that.'' /d.at 3 640. A state regulation that requires railroad vehicles to be m aintained in safe conditions 4 does notim plem entfederalsafety norm s and is thus nota statute forsection 53 purposes, 5 Fletcher, 568 F.3d at 638-41. In so concluding,the Seventh Circuit reasoned that a key 6 purpose of the FELA was to create a nationally uniform Iaw ofrailroads. /J.at 640. ,see 49 7 U.S.C.j 2O106(a)(1).Thus,state Iawsthatdo notsimply implementfederalrailroad safety 8 Iawsshould notbetreatedasstatutesunderj53.Otherwise,twostateswithidenticallaws 9 would afford disparate dam ages depending on w hetherthey participated in the investigative 10 and surveillance activitiesspecified in j 20105.Fletcher,568 F.3d at640. 11 Plaintiffs argue thatC ongress did not intend the FELA to preem pt aIIstate safety 12 regulationsand specificallyrecognized thatsom e state regulations m aycoexistw ith the FELA, 13 (PI.'s Opp'n (//58)4:14-5:19).Thisisnotatissue. The issue iswhetherstate regulations 14 should effecta negligentplaintiffs recovery in the same way thatfederalsafety regulations 15 do.Plaintiffs also characterize Defendants argum entas suggesting thatonly FRA regulations 16 may qualify as statutes under5 54(a). (PI.'s Opp'n (#58)5:20-6:9). This is inaccurate. 17 Defendants argue thatFRA safety regulations and federalsafety statutes and state statutes 18 and regulationsthatsupportand implementthem qualifyasstatutesunderj54(a).Plaintiffs 19 iargelyrelyon Tyrre//ttNorfolkS.Ry.Co.,248F.3d 517(6th Cir.2001).(PI.'sOpp'n (#58) 20 8:20-9:25). But,Tyrrellonly addressed whetheran Ohio railroad safety regulation was 2l preempted byfederaliaw,notwhetheritqualified as a ''statute''underj 54(a)to prevent 22 reduction in dam ages forcom parative negligence. See Tyrrell,248 F.3d at520-25.3 23 /// 24 25 3Plaintiffs ajso rely on non-binding,unpublished districtcourtopinions and state court 26 opinionsthatholdthatarld regulalionbya stateagencypadicipating ininvestigative and surveillance activities is a statute underj 54(a): See Wells v.San Joaquin Valley R.R., :06-CV-0O678.2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 74729.at*12-13 (E.D .Ca1.Sept.25,20071. ,W auner 27 1 t:. unionPacifick.R.co.,No.civ.s-03-0582,)004U.S.Dlst.LEXIS 31117.at*3-6' (E.D.-C 'aI. 28 JuIy16,2004). ,whitleye.southernPacificTransp.co.,9O2P.2d1196,120/-04 (0r'.Ct.App. 1995). 4 1 Plaintiffs also argue thatDefendants'm otion is a disguised and untim ely m otion for 2 summaryjudgment.ThoughDefendantsarenotseekinganevidentiaryruling,arulingonthis 3 m atter before trialw illbe helpfulto an orderly trialas itw illaffect w hetherevidence of M r. 4 Croswell's own negligence is relevantto damagesand willinfluence thejuryinstructions. 5 Because this issue is primarily concerned with jury instructions,the Coud invites further 6 briefing on the matterin regard to the properjury instructions in this case. 7 Plaintiffs finally argue that Defendants adm itted that the Nevada regulations are 8 statutes because they did notrespond in theiransw erto Plaintiffs'allegation thatthe Nevada 9 regulations were incorporated through the FELA . Defendants asserled that Plainti#s' 10 allegation did notrequire a response. Plaintiffs'allegation contained a Iegalconclusion. It ll is for the Courtto decide Iegalm atters. The parties m ay notalter the Iaw by agreem ent. 12 Therefore,Plaintiffs'argum ent is unpersuasive. 13 UnderNevadaAdministrativeCodej705.030,mostobjectsmustbeatleasteightfeet 14 and six inches aw ay from the centerIine ofa railroad trackfortranspoding freightcars. Nev. 15 Admin,Codej705.O3O(1)(i).Section 705.062alsoprohibitsthe placementofarlicleswithin 16 eightfeetandsixinchesfrom the centerIine ofthe track.Nev.Admin.Codej 705.062(1). 17 Nevada isa participantintheinvestigativeand suweillance activitiesspecified inj20105. 18 (State RailSafety Programs Managers,attached as Ex.A to Def.'s Erratato Mot,inLimine 19 (//52),http://- .fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/stateManagerszoog.pdf),Defendantsassert 20 thatNevada Administrative Code jj 705.030 and 705.062 do notimplementany federal 21 regulation orstatute.The Courl has Iikew ise found no federalstatute orregulation regarding 22 m inim um side clearance ofrailways. Plaintiffs provide quotations from the FederalRailroad 23 Administrationthatstatethatitdoesnotproscribeclearancedistancesfortracks.(PI.'sOpp'n 24 (#58)6:10-7:1). Therefore,anyviolation ofNevada Administrative Code 5ç 705.030 and 25 705.062 by Defendants does notoverride the generalcom parative negligence regim e under 26 the FELA . 27 To hold otherwise w ould Iead to inconsistent results across states. A plaintiff in 28 Nevada w ould be able to recover100% ofhis dam ages despite his com parative negligence 5 1 ifthe defendanthad stacked m aterials eightfeetfrom the track. But,ifin anotherstate,the 2 state regulation only mandated side clearancesofseven feet,the plaintiffinthatstate would 3 have his recovery reduced by his comparative negligence ifthe defendantstacked articles 4 eightfeetfrom the track, This would be counterto Congress'proclamation that''Illaws, 5 regulations,and orders relatedto railroad safety and Iaws,regulations,and ordersrelated to 6 railroad security shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable,'' 49 U.S.C . 7 j 2O106(a)(1). Though the Courthas revealed its inclination to agree with Defendants, 8 becausethismattermayberevisitedduringtheselectionofjuryinstructions,theCourtdenies 9 the presentmotionwithoutprejudice.lv.CoNcuusloN Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED that 10 Defendants'Motionsin Limine (#50)isGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatDefendants'firstmotion in Iimine is DENIED, The 12 Courtalso expects fudherbriefing on theissue in Defendants'firstmotionin Iim ineduring the 13 selectionofjtlryinstructions.Thisruling iswithoutprejudice to potentialjuryinstructions. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED:This 23* day ofJune,2010. 16 l7 18 19 6 rt * Jon , . UNITED ST 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 S DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
