Andrew Spencer v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
2014 Tenn. LEXIS 626
Tenn.2014Background
- On May 16, 2010 Andrew Spencer, a Norfolk Southern employee, injured his back while throwing a track switch and sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) alleging the switch was not properly maintained and the railroad had notice of the defect.
- At trial both parties proposed special jury instructions about the railroad’s notice; the trial court gave its own notice instruction which stated the plaintiff must prove the railroad "knew or should have known that on the day of the incident the switch was not operating properly."
- The plaintiff objected that this language improperly narrowed the timing of notice to the actual date of injury (May 16) rather than allowing notice at any earlier time prior to the incident.
- The jury asked whether all three charged elements had to be proved; the court confirmed they did, and the jury returned a verdict for Norfolk Southern.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court’s instruction improperly limited the notice window and ordered a new trial; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court held the instruction was "substantially accurate" when read in context (including examples in the charge and defense counsel’s closing), reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction improperly required proof that the railroad knew or should have known of the defect on the actual day of injury | Spencer: instruction narrowed notice to May 16 and thus imposed improper timing burden | Norfolk Southern: instruction, read in context, allowed notice at any time prior to the incident and was substantially accurate | Court: instruction was substantially accurate in context; did not require notice only on the injury date |
| Proper formulation of notice/foreseeability under FELA | Spencer: need only show failure to properly maintain, not knowledge on the day of injury | Norfolk Southern: plaintiff must prove railroad knew or should have known of the unsafe condition that existed at time of injury | Court: plaintiff must show railroad knew or should have known the switch was not operating properly at time of incident; prior notice that remained uncorrected satisfies this |
| Whether the trial court’s charge misled the jury given the jury’s question about the three elements | Spencer: jury’s question evidences confusion caused by the charge | Norfolk Southern: jury was properly instructed that all elements must be proved; context clarified timing | Court: jury question did not show the charge was misleading; overall charge and counsel arguments clarified timing |
| Whether any instructional error required reversal or was harmless | Spencer: error warranted new trial | Norfolk Southern: charge was accurate; if error existed it would be harmless | Court: no error; did not reach harmless-error analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, 347 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for reviewing jury instructions and requirement they be substantially accurate)
- Mills v. CSX Transp., Inc., 300 S.W.3d 627 (Tenn. 2009) (FELA claims in state court governed by federal substantive law; railroad duty to provide safe workplace)
- Szekeres v. CSX Transp., Inc., 617 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2010) (notice may be inferred from conditions discoverable by reasonable care prior to injury)
- Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 509 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements of a FELA claim and causation standard)
- Akers v. Prime Succession of Tenn., Inc., 387 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. 2012) (jury instructions are not held to a standard of perfection)
- Miller v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Tex. Pac. Ry., 317 F.2d 693 (6th Cir. 1963) (railroad negligence requires proof that defect was known or should have been known with opportunity to correct)