Central of Georgia Railroad Company v. Ross
342 Ga. App. 27
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Nathaniel Ross, a conductor for Central of Georgia Railroad, fell into an unguarded 42-inch drainage ditch beside a work gravel path during a night switching operation on Nov. 1, 2005, injuring his right knee.
- Vegetation obscured the ditch edge; no barrier, warning, or direct lighting protected the path; Central inspected the area monthly but took no protective measures.
- Ross required two knee surgeries and ongoing treatment; he returned to railroad work briefly but was later terminated for disciplinary reasons and eventually worked at Wal‑Mart.
- Ross sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA); after trial nearly ten years later, the jury awarded $1,033,000 and found Ross 40% contributorily negligent, yielding a net verdict of $619,800.
- Central moved for judgment as a matter of law and new trial, arguing lack of employer negligence, improper admission of railroad‑scale wage evidence, and improper sympathy/poverty evidence; the trial court denied relief and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any evidence supported employer negligence and causation under FELA | Ross: vegetation‑obscured unguarded ditch and inadequate lighting created a dangerous workplace that contributed to his fall | Central: no evidence of its negligence; Ross’s own negligence caused the injury | Affirmed: sufficient evidence for jury; FELA causation relaxed—any employer negligence that played any part supports liability |
| Admissibility of railroad‑scale wages/benefits for lost earning capacity | Ross: may use railroad wages to measure lost earning capacity had injury not occurred | Central: Ross was later fired for unrelated reasons, so railroad wages are irrelevant/speculative | Affirmed: admissible to show earning capacity; jury instructed Ross did not seek wages lost due to termination |
| Admissibility of disciplinary/termination evidence and plaintiff’s rebuttal | Ross: termination evidence could rebut Central’s claim that he wouldn’t have continued working for railroad | Central: disciplinary history shows Ross wouldn’t have continued and so rebuts lost‑wage claim | Affirmed: trial court properly admitted disciplinary evidence and allowed Ross to present rebuttal because Central invited the issue |
| Whether plaintiff’s testimony and counsel’s comments about family/poverty required new trial | Ross: testimony described mental distress from inability to care for children and work limitations (element of pain and suffering) | Central: such statements violated in limine order banning financial sympathy evidence and improperly solicited sympathy | Affirmed: statements related to pain, suffering, grief and distress were admissible; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (FELA causation relaxed; employer negligence need only play any part)
- Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Zeagler, 293 Ga. 582 (railroad duty to furnish safe workplace; jury determines breach)
- Hepner v. Southern R. Co., 182 Ga. App. 346 (railroad must take precautions commensurate with danger)
- Hall v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 829 F. Supp. 1571 (use of railroad wages to measure earning capacity)
- Schumpert v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 270 Ga. App. 782 (FELA plaintiff may present railroad wages even if later fired)