Martin v. BNSF Railway Co.
352 P.3d 598
Mont.2015Background
- Martin injured stepping from a locomotive at Whitefish in Jan 2009; injury led to ACL tear and time off work.
- He sued BNSF under FELA alleging negligence and LIA violations; jury found for BNSF on negligence and LIA claims.
- LIA claim discussed: violation of a federal safety statute can support LIA liability and yield negligence per se under FELA.
- District Court allowed LIA issue to go to jury; later denied JMOL and new trial motions.
- Two evidentiary issues arose: heated platforms (Whitefish and Essex) and admissibility of Martin’s non-railroad income.
- On appeal, court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on the LIA/ heated-platform income issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| LIA claim submitted to jury validity | Martin argues LIA violation should be submitted to jury | BNSF contends jury questions on LIA suffice | LIA issue properly sent to jury; no error in submission |
| Admission of heated platform evidence | Evidence of Whitefish heating (Amtrak) is admissible as non-party remedy | Evidence is improper subsequent remedial measure and irrelevant | Error to exclude heated Whitefish platform; Essex platform evidence properly excluded; remand on One issue |
| Admission of non-railroad income amounts | Outside income should not be used to undermine wage loss; indirect relevance limited | Outside income shows availability and motivation; probative context is important | Admitting income/expenses from non-railroad work was prejudicial; harmful error; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2011 MT 223 (Mont. 2011) (discusses FELA/LIA interplay and standard of review)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (safety statutes create continuing duty to provide safe equipment)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1994) (negligence per se extended to statutory violations in safety context)
- Stevens v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2010 MT 282 (Mont. 2010) (M.R. Evid. 407 does not prohibit evidence of subsequent remedial measures by non-parties)
- Mydlarz v. Palmer/Duncan Constr. Co., 209 Mont. 325 (Mont. 1984) (outside wage evidence deemed highly prejudicial; collateral-like concern)
- Mickelson v. Mont. Rail Link, Inc., 2000 MT 111 (Mont. 2000) (exclusion of external wage evidence related to prejudice and context)
- Boude v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2012 MT 98 (Mont. 2012) (test for prejudicial error: reasonable possibility inadmissible evidence affected verdict)
- Pacificorp v. Dep’t. of Revenue, 254 Mont. 387 (Mont. 1992) (prejudice and probative value balancing guidance for evidentiary rulings)
- Williams v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2013 MT 243 (Mont. 2013) (alternate avenues for obtaining information when initial path is blocked)