Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.
811 N.W.2d 618
Minn.2012Background
- Ferry Street crossing collision (Sept 26, 2003) involving a BNSF freight train, four occupants of a Chevrolet Cavalier died, estates sued BNSF for wrongful death.
- District court instructed jury on a common-law/‘reasonable person’ standard of care without objection from BNSF; no pretrial motion asserting regulatory standard.
- Trial evidence showed conflicting theories: BNSF claimed gates/signals worked; appellants showed prior malfunctions and failures to maintain signals.
- Verdict: BNSF 90% liable; driver 10% liable; damages awarded $6 million per estate, reduced by driver’s comparative fault.
- Court of Appeals reversed denial of new-trial on liability due to the instruction; Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to determine if new trial was warranted.
- Court ultimately reverses the Court of Appeals on the instruction issue and affirms district court’s denial of a new trial on other grounds (adverse-inference, evidence, newly discovered evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a common-law standard instruction was error | Frazier argues instruction impermissibly allowed common-law negligence instead of regulatory standard. | BNSF contends any error was invited/plain error and not prejudicial to fairness. | No reversible error; no new trial required. |
| Whether invited error can be reviewed as plain error | BNSF invited the error by its conduct and proposals. | If invited, plain-error review applies; nonetheless no new trial warranted. | Even if invited error, no entitlement to a new trial. |
| Whether adverse-inference instruction on spoliation warranted a new trial | Instruction expanded inference against BNSF and prejudiced trial. | District court acted within discretion; instruction appropriately limited. | District court did not abuse; no new trial for adverse-inference. |
| Whether newly discovered evidence entitled BNSF to a new trial | Three witnesses' post-trial evidence could have changed outcome. | Evidence not admissible or not probative enough; district court acted within discretion. | District court’s denial affirmed; no new trial on that ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 844 (2000) (preemption of state law by federal railroad-crossing regulations)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (federal regulations preempt state-law negligence standards)
- State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn.1998) (plain-error standard in criminal appeals; adopted for civil plain-error review)
- Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860 (Minn.2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial motions; appellate review)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (requirements for plain-error review; error, plain, and the effect on substantial rights)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (careful balancing in plain-error review; limits on harmless error)
- Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (standard for plain-error review in criminal trials)
- Reales v. Conrail, 84 F.3d 993 (7th Cir.1996) (federal preemption and regulatory compliance defenses)
- Ayoub v. Amtrak, 76 F.3d 794 (6th Cir.1996) (preemption considerations in rail-crossing context)