933 F.3d 591
6th Cir.2019Background
- Thirteen-year-old Shyan Frye was struck and killed while walking her bicycle across a Conrail-owned single-track crossing; CSX-operated train crew (engineer Fischer and conductor Gallacher) sounded the horn and brakes were applied but the collision occurred.
- Crossing signals (bells/lights) activated ~40 seconds before impact; photographs from the accident scene showed large gaps in the crossing surface where a bicycle tire might lodge.
- Defendants presented evidence that decedent was taking Celexa (an antidepressant) and Adderall, and introduced expert testimony that Celexa can cause suicidal ideation in children; plaintiff sought to exclude that testimony as irrelevant and prejudicial.
- District court granted summary judgment for conductor Gallacher (finding CSX internal operating procedures do not create a state-law duty), dismissed the horn claim against CSX, and allowed remaining negligence claims against CSX and Conrail to go to trial; jury found for defendants (Conrail negligent but not a proximate cause).
- Plaintiff moved for a new trial challenging: admission of Celexa-side-effect testimony, denial of jury instruction elevating duty where children present (M.C.I. 10.07), summary judgment for Gallacher, exclusion of post-accident resurfacing photographs (Rule 407), and refusal to strike a prospective juror for cause; district court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Celexa side-effect testimony | Evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Evidence was relevant to explain decedent's state of mind and behavior before impact | Admitted; probative on why decedent remained on tracks and not substantially outweighed by prejudice (no abuse of discretion) |
| Jury instruction elevating duty because child present (M.C.I. 10.07) | Court should instruct jury to apply heightened vigilance when children likely present | Michigan precedent specifically permits train crew to presume persons (including children) will move off tracks until it appears otherwise | Denied; court instead instructed jury to apply reasonable-minor standard — MCI 10.07 unnecessary and would conflict with Michigan train-specific rule |
| Summary judgment for conductor Gallacher (duty to help stop train) | CSX internal operating procedures created a legal duty on Gallacher to assist/stop train | Internal corporate policies do not create independent state-law duties; no Michigan authority imposing such a duty | Affirmed; internal policies are not the basis for imposing a legal duty and plaintiff forfeited any independent state-law-duty argument by not raising it below |
| Exclusion of photographs of crossing after resurfacing (Rule 407) | Resurfacing was compelled by MDOT, so photos are not inadmissible subsequent remedial measures | Photos are subsequent remedial measures and inadmissible to prove negligence | If error, harmless: jury already found Conrail negligent but not proximate cause; exclusion did not affect substantial rights |
| Denial of challenge for cause to prospective juror (Lodge) | Juror's business ties to government leasing, possible indirect dealings with railroads, and NDA created implied bias | Juror stated no financial interest affecting impartiality; indirect dealings insufficient to show actual or implied bias | No abuse of discretion; presumption of impartiality stands and plaintiff used a peremptory strike anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayers v. City of Cleveland, 773 F.3d 161 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Broad Street Energy Co. v. Endeavor Ohio, LLC, 806 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2015) (deference to trial court on evidentiary decisions)
- Romain v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., 762 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. 2009) (duty element under Michigan law)
- Zdrojewski v. Murphy, 657 N.W.2d 721 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (courts decline to impose legal duties based on internal policies)
- Tomes v. Detroit, T. & I.R. Co., 215 N.W. 308 (Mich. 1927) (train-crew presumption that persons on tracks will move off in time)
- Harnden v. Jayco, 496 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2007) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)