BNSF Railway Company v. Ronald Nichols
379 S.W.3d 378
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Nichols sued BNSF under FELA after neck, back, and shoulder injuries allegedly from cumulative trauma due to GOOME as a switchman from 1979 to 1995.
- Nichols mounted/dismounted moving railcars about 20–35 times per day during his tenure as a switchman; he stopped GOOME in 1993 at some yards but claims Temple yard allowed it until 1995.
- Medical history: knee pain in 2004, neck/shoulder pain in 2005–2006, MRI showed disc degeneration; surgeries followed in 2007–2009.
- Expert Dr. Eidman attributed injuries to repetitive GOOME and cumulative trauma; Barbre (1992) analyzed GOOME forces, informing causation.
- Jury awarded Nichols $1,560,740; court later excluded past medical expenses and entered judgment for $1,163,960.
- Trial court admitted various expert testimony; BNSF challenged causation, reliability of Eidman’s testimony, and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is evidence causally linking GOOME to Nichols’s injuries | Nichols supporting evidence shows repetitive GOOME could cause DDD/back/neck injuries | No epidemiological proof or force-dose testimony tying GOOME to DDD | Yes; Eidman’s testimony deemed reliable and sufficient to prove causation under FELA |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying causation jury instructions | Charge properly allowed differential causation analysis and reliability standards | Requests mirrored Supreme Court guidance but were not required as given | No error; instructions substantially approved by CSX framework |
| Whether there was sufficient foreseeability to support negligence under FELA | Railroad knew GOOME existed and risks; foreseeability shown via studies | No evidence GOOME could cause DDD; unforeseeable long-term effects | Yes; evidence of industry awareness and overexertion injuries supports foreseeability |
Key Cases Cited
- Huffman v. Union Pac. R.R., 675 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2012) (establishes probative causation standard under FELA for some link between work and injury)
- Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., 597 F.3d 474 (1st Cir. 2010) (reliability and differential diagnosis can support causation in repetitive injuries)
- Myers v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 629 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2010) (differential etiology as a method; validates rule-in/rule-out approach)
- Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2010) (Daubert considerations for reliability of explanations in differential diagnosis)
- Rogers v. Mo. Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) (negligence liability under FELA allows damages for unforeseen injury manifestations)
- Union Pac. R.R. v. Williams, 85 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2002) (state-law framework for FELA causation and foreseeability considerations)
- Gallick v. Balt. & Ohio R.R., 372 U.S. 108 (1963) (foreseeability standard for negligence under railroad liability)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630 (2011) (modernize causation standard under FELA; 'any part' causation concept)