Burchfield v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6505
11th Cir.2011Background
- CSX delivered the AEX 7136 railcar loaded with grain to General Mills' Covington, GA plant in 2005; two days later, Burchfield and Turk moved the railcar with a Trackmobile while Burchfield worked on the ground.
- The railcar rolled downhill and crashed into two other railcars, injuring Burchfield, who suffered serious injuries including loss of use of his legs.
- In 2007, Burchfield sued CSX and Andersons, asserting negligence, negligence per se, and punitive damages based on allegedly defective hand brake in violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act and FRA regulations; Andersons settled and was dismissed with prejudice.
- At trial, CSX introduced a soundless Wolf video created for OSHA investigation showing the railcar with an allegedly efficient hand brake at General Mills, plus Nutt's brake-test deposition and Jobes' 30(b)(6) deposition; Burchfield challenged these evidentiary items.
- The district court admitted the Wolf video over objections; CSX emphasized the video as demonstrating an efficient hand brake, while Burchfield argued improper foundation and lack of substantial similarity; the jury returned a verdict for CSX.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the Wolf video was admitted in error and not harmless, reversing on evidentiary grounds and not addressing other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the Wolf video under substantial similarity | Video was a reenactment; required substantial similarity foundation | Video was demonstrative; not a reenactment; admissible under 901(a) | Abused in admitting; not substantially similar foundation; reversible error |
| Foundation for the Wolf video via Henderson testimony | Henderson's testimony insufficient to prove similarity | Henderson witnessed testing and described conditions | District court abused discretion; improper foundational showing |
| Admissibility of Nutt's deposition testimony | Deposition on brake tests barred as expert opinion | Limitation preserved by district court; allowed factual observations | Limited admission; detailed holding not necessary due to reversal on Wolf video |
| Admissibility of Jobes' 30(b)(6) deposition | Deposition testimony improperly introduced to bolster CSX theory | Proper corporate representative testimony | Part of evidentiary challenges; reversal on Wolf video suffices to remand |
| Jury instruction on negligence per se | Instruction warranted by FSA and FRA provisions | No error or insufficient basis for per se instruction | Remand for new trial; issue preserved for reconsideration on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Gen. Motors Corp., 547 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1977) (experimental evidence requires substantial similarity to the event in question)
- Gaskell v. United States, 985 F.2d 1056 (11th Cir. 1993) (demonstrative evidence must be fair and not misleading; probative value balanced against prejudice)
- Proctor v. Fluor Enters., 494 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; substantial prejudice required to reverse)
- Hasner v. United States, 340 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instructions; prejudicial harm necessary)