Anne Payne v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
467 S.W.3d 413
Tenn.2015Background
- Winston Carroll Payne worked for CSX (and predecessors) 1962–2003 and was diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer in 2005; he died in 2010 and his widow, Anne Payne, was substituted as plaintiff.
- Payne sued under FELA alleging workplace exposures (asbestos, diesel exhaust, radioactive materials) and negligence per se for regulatory violations; defense blamed his heavy prior smoking and sought reduction or bar of recovery for contributory negligence.
- At a 2010 jury trial the jury found CSX negligent and negligent per se, assessed Payne 62% contributory negligence, and awarded $8.6 million “without any deduction.” After the judge (sua sponte) instructed that negligence per se would preclude reduction for contributory negligence, the jury re-deliberated and returned an amended verdict of $3.2 million “at 100%.”
- Trial judge entered judgment for $3.2M, then granted CSX a new trial (citing instructional/evidentiary errors) and recused; a successor judge excluded plaintiff’s experts on causation and granted summary judgment for CSX.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and directed the original judge either to enter judgment for $8.6M or $3.2M; the Tennessee Supreme Court held that plaintiff’s experts were admissible, the judge erred by re-instructing the jury post-verdict, and remanded for a new trial limited to damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was a JNOV warranted / was evidence legally insufficient? | Evidence (lay + experts) sufficiently showed workplace exposures contributed to cancer under FELA’s relaxed causation standard. | Plaintiff failed to present competent prima facie proof of negligence or regulatory violations; JNOV appropriate. | Trial court implicitly rejected JNOV; appellate courts decline to grant JNOV where jury evidence creates fact issues. JNOV not ordered. |
| Was the new-trial order proper based on evidentiary/instructional errors? | Most evidentiary rulings were proper; only prejudice arose from post-verdict supplemental instructions. | Multiple evidentiary and instruction errors warranted new trial. | Admission rulings and most instructions were proper; only prejudicial error was judge’s sua sponte post-verdict instruction that invited jury to revise damages. |
| Were plaintiff’s expert opinions on causation admissible without quantitative dose data? | Experts' differential-diagnosis and qualitative opinions (industrial hygiene, radiation, occupational medicine) were reliable and admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 702/703. | Experts lacked accepted, reliable science and dose reconstructions; their opinions should be excluded. | Experts were admissible; dose-quantification not required where defendant failed to monitor exposures and experts used reliable methods; admissibility is gatekeeper role but weight is for jury. |
| Remedy: enter judgment for $8.6M, for $3.2M, or remand? | Reinstate original $8.6M or, at minimum, limit retrial to damages only. | New trial necessary because jury repudiated original award; cannot resurrect initial verdict. | Court holds post-verdict reduction was induced by erroneous instruction, original $8.6M required trial-court review as thirteenth juror which did not occur; remedy = new trial limited to damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk S. Ry. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158 (U.S. 2007) (describing FELA’s purpose)
- McBride v. CSX Transp., 131 S. Ct. 2630 (U.S. 2011) (FELA causation standard—‘played a part’)
- Rogers v. Mo. Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1957) (employee recovery under FELA despite other causes)
- Grand Trunk W. Ry. v. Lindsay, 233 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1914) (statutory violation under FELA negates contributory-negligence reduction)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (broad FELA causation language)
- McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997) (factors for admissibility/reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (gatekeeping role of trial judge for expert testimony)
- Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, 347 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)