CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Pitts
430 Md. 431
| Md. | 2013Background
- Edward L. Pitts, Sr. sued CSX Transportation under FELA for allegedly negligent ballast choices in yards affecting his walkway safety.
- Pitts claimed CSX used large ballast instead of small ballast in yards where he walked, causing knee osteoarthritis.
- FRSA regulation 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 governs ballast for track support; question whether it precludes FELA claims based on ballast choice.
- The trial court and Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that § 213.103 precludes only ballast performing track-support, not walkway ballast.
- CSX sought preclusion, a new trial on two jury instructions, and limits on cross-examination about worklife expectancy.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals held that Pitts’s FELA claim was not precluded, the jury instructions were not prejudicial, and cross-examination limits were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRSA preemption of FELA ballast claim | Pitts: § 213.103 does not preclude walkways. | CSX: ballast regulation preempts FELA via substantial subsumption. | Not precluded; ballast must perform track-support function |
| Scope of ballast preclusion (track-support vs walkway ballast) | Walkway ballast not performing track support is outside § 213.103. | All ballast potentially used for support is within § 213.103. | § 213.103 covers track-support ballast but not walkway ballast |
| Burden of proof on preclusion | CSX bears burden to prove preclusion by showing ballast performed track support. | CSX bears burden to prove preclusion under the regulation. | CSX failed to prove which ballast areas supported the track; no preclusion |
| Jury instructions—statutory purpose and violation evidence | Instructions about FELA history and violation-of-statute evidence were proper. | Instructions were erroneous and prejudicial. | Not prejudicial; instructions upheld |
| Cross-examination using worklife tables vs collateral source rule | AAR worklife tables are relevant to damages and cross-examination should be broader. | Collateral source rule limits retirement-benefit evidence; cross-examination should be constrained. | Cross-examination allowed to touch on statistics; no new trial on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1993) (defines 'cover' vs 'substantially subsume' in FRSA preemption)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Box, 556 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2009) (walkways not regulated by FRSA; ballast regulations focus on track bed)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Miller, 159 Md.App. 123 (Md. Ct. App. 2004) (discusses ballast preclusion and Maryland approach)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Bickerstaff, 187 Md.App. 187 (Md. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguishes retirement statistics vs eligibility under collateral source rule)
- Haischer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 381 Md. 119 (Md. 2004) (collateral source rule and disability benefits admissibility)