Illinois Central Railroad v. Brent
2013 Miss. LEXIS 595
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Perry Brent, an Illinois Central locomotive engineer, was struck by a .177 caliber pellet through an open cab window while operating a locomotive in 1999; he later developed shoulder/neck problems and depression.
- The locomotive lacked air conditioning; Brent kept side windows open for ventilation. A teenager later pleaded guilty to aggravated battery for the shooting.
- Brent sued Illinois Central under FELA for negligent failure to provide a reasonably safe workplace and asserted negligence-per-se under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) / FRA regulations (ventilation, safety glazing).
- At trial the jury returned a general verdict for Brent and the court entered judgment for $500,000; Illinois Central moved for JNOV and appealed after those motions were denied.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court held the trial court erred in allowing the LIA negligence-per-se claim to go to the jury (insufficient evidence that open-window ventilation was improper), but affirmed the general verdict because sufficient evidence supported a FELA negligence theory (foreseeability, causation, expert testimony admissible).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LIA/regulation-based negligence-per-se (ventilation) survived SJ/directed verdict | Brent: cab ventilation was inadequate because he needed to open a window; regulation requires "proper ventilation" | Ill. Cent.: no regulation required AC; open windows supplied ventilation and no evidence showed open-window ventilation was improper | Court: Directed verdict should have been granted for defendant on LIA negligence-per-se; Brent produced no probative evidence that open-window ventilation violated the regulation |
| Whether FELA negligence claim is precluded by FRSA / FRA regulations (express preclusion) | Brent: LIA/FRSA regulations supplement FELA; compliance with ventilation or glazing regs does not immunize railroad from FELA negligence for known hazards (e.g., projectiles through open windows) | Ill. Cent.: FRSA/LIA regulations (ventilation, safety glazing) "cover" the subject matter and thus preclude FELA negligence claims | Court: FELA claim not expressly precluded; ventilation regulation did not subsume FELA negligence theory; safety-glazing regulation also did not clearly demonstrate congressional intent to displace FELA recovery |
| Whether FELA claim is implicitly precluded by FRA decisions not to require AC (implied preclusion) | Brent: FRA’s decision not to promulgate AC rules does not constitute an authoritative determination that the area must be left unregulated and does not resolve whether employer provided a "reasonably safe" workplace | Ill. Cent.: FRA repeatedly considered and rejected AC mandates, showing an authoritative decision not to regulate | Court: No implied preclusion — FRA’s refusal to require AC did not convey an authoritative federal policy foreclosing FELA negligence claims |
| Causation and foreseeability (did lack of AC / open window cause injury and was projectile risk foreseeable?) | Brent: Industry trend, FRA glazing rule, and other evidence established that open windows negated glazing protection and that projectiles at trains were a known risk; thus employer negligence could have contributed even slightly | Ill. Cent.: No proof that lack of AC caused the injury or that the injury was foreseeable to defendant | Court: Under the Rogers standard (FELA), minimal proof that employer negligence played any part suffices; evidence of nationwide standards and industry practice made foreseeability and causation jury questions; verdict affirmed |
| Admissibility of expert Lawrence Mann | Brent: Mann qualified by long experience drafting railroad safety rules and historical/regulatory knowledge; his testimony informed the jury about industry standards and history | Ill. Cent.: Mann (an attorney) lacked engineering/inspection credentials; opinions were unreliable and included improper legal conclusions | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion — Mann was sufficiently qualified for the limited factual/regulatory testimony he gave; Daubert factors go to weight, not exclusion, here |
Key Cases Cited
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S.) (LIA is substantively an amendment to FELA; federal law governs negligence under FELA)
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S.) (FELA causation standard: employer negligence need only have played any part, even the slightest)
- Weaver v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 152 F.3d 427 (5th Cir.) (compliance with ventilation regulation does not automatically bar FELA claims based on other foreseeable risks like stonings/shootings)
- Mosco v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 817 F.2d 1088 (4th Cir.) (items like air conditioning are not necessarily "parts and appurtenances" under LIA; open windows can supply ventilation)
- Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439 (5th Cir.) (FRSA national-uniformity rationale can preclude FELA claims where federal regulations "cover" the subject matter)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S.) (trial courts as gatekeepers must assess expert relevance and reliability)