CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Pitts
38 A.3d 445
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Pitts, a CSX employee, sued CSX under FELA for knee injuries allegedly from walking on ballast in yards and walkways.
- Trial involved issues about ballast size and location (yards/walkways vs. mainline track) and whether ballast caused injuries.
- Two witnesses (Jenkins and Howe) testified about prior complaints re ballast, over CSX objection; their testimony was challenged as prejudicial/cumulative.
- The court instructed the jury on FELA background and on the doctrine of negligence evidenced by statutory violations; evidence and proceedings yielded a $1,246,000 verdict after post-trial motions.
- CSX contested cross-examination limits on an economist’s statistics and later movant-remittitur, and the court denied relief; the judgment was affirmed.
- Pitts alleged that large ballast caused direct injury and that ballast in yards and walkways fell within FELA causation; CSX argued FRSA/§213.103 preemption and evidentiary limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRSA preemption of FELA claims | Pitts argues FRSA/§213.103 precludes FELA claims | CSX contends FRSA preempts such FELA claims | Not precluded; FRSA does not preempt ballast in yards/walkways under §213.103 |
| Admission of Jenkins and Howe testimony | Testimony shows notice; relevant and not unduly prejudicial | Testimony unfairly prejudicial and duplicative | No abuse of discretion; testimony admissible and not unduly prejudicial/cumulative |
| Cross-examining economist on retirement statistics | Cross-exam should illuminate retiree age impact | Statistics on retirement age are improper collateral evidence | Court did not abuse discretion; cross-examination limited consistent with Tiller/Bickerstaff |
| Jury instructions on FELA policy and statute evidence of negligence | Instructions properly framed to explain FELA; statute-evidence wasn't misused | Policy/background language and statute-evidence instruction were prejudicial/misleading | Instruction on statute evidence deemed harmless error; overall framing not reversible |
| Damages and remittitur | Award reasonable given long-term injuries and future treatments | Damages excessive; remittitur warranted | No abuse of discretion; damages affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. CSX Transp., Inc., 159 Md.App. 123 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004) (walkways not covered by FRSA ballast regulation; preclusion not implied)
- Bickerstaff v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 Md.App. 187 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009) (preclusion not apply to ballast in yards/walkways; notice evidence admissible; cross-exam restrictions discussed)
- Tiller v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 179 Md.App. 318 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (employee-friendly standard of review; collateral-source rule considerations)
- Norris v. Cent. of Ga. R.R. Co., 635 S.E.2d 179 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) ( FRSA walkways ballast issue discussed in preemption context)
- Hendrix v. Port Terminal R.R. Assoc., 196 S.W.3d 188 (Tex.App. 2006) (FRSA ballast regulation not necessarily precluding walkway claims)
- Elston v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 74 P.3d 478 (Colo.App. 2003) (FRSA regulation silent on walkways; preclusion not implied)
- Nickels v. Grand Trunk W.R.R., 560 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2009) (ballast-size regulation precludes mainline ballast claims; walkways not clearly covered)