Myrick v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
2017 IL App (1st) 161023
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Chevas Myrick, a Union Pacific conductor performing a transfer job at Belt Railway’s yard, was dropped off by a Belt employee in a dark, unplowed area covered in deep snow and stepped into a snow-covered hole, injuring his leg.
- Myrick sued under FELA (against Union Pacific and Belt Railway) and for common-law negligence (against Belt), alleging defendants negligently dropped him at an unsafe location instead of using customary safer drop-off sites.
- Before trial, the court granted defendants’ motion in limine barring evidence that Belt previously used or could have used safer alternative drop-off locations (Argo and under the Harlem Avenue bridge).
- Myrick made an offer of proof that Belt routinely used those alternative, better-lit, level locations and sometimes called cabs to drop employees there.
- The jury returned a defense verdict; the trial court denied Myrick’s new-trial motion. On appeal, Myrick argued Illinois evidentiary rules apply to admissibility in state-court FELA actions and that the excluded alternative-location evidence was relevant to negligence.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by excluding relevant evidence of safer alternatives that the jury could consider in assessing reasonable care under FELA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence about safer alternative drop-off locations | Myrick: evidence of customary, safer alternatives (Argo, Harlem) is relevant to what a reasonably prudent railroad would have done and thus to breach of duty under FELA | Defendants: evidence of alternatives is irrelevant; FELA requires only that the actual method be reasonably safe, not that the employer used the safest possible method | Reversed: Evidence of safer alternative locations was improperly excluded; once plaintiff shows some evidence the method used was unsafe, evidence of available safer alternatives is admissible for the jury to assess negligence |
| Applicable law for evidentiary procedure in state-court FELA case | Myrick: Illinois evidence rules govern admissibility in state court; federal law governs substantive negligence standard | Defendants: admissibility governed by federal FELA principles because duty arises from federal law | Held: Federal law defines substantive negligence; state (Illinois) rules govern evidentiary admissibility unless they interfere with FELA rights; court applied both appropriately on remand |
| Proper standard to decide exclusion of alternative-method evidence | Myrick: Stone requires juror appraisal of alternatives as part of negligence analysis | Defendants: Stillman supports exclusion where focus should be on reasonableness of method used, not hypotheticals | Held: Stone controls when evidence shows the method used may have been unsafe; Stillman does not bar alternatives categorically—alternatives admissible if some evidence shows the actual method was potentially unreasonable |
| Whether exclusion warranted harmlessness or lesser remedy | Myrick: exclusion deprived jury of context necessary to find breach; warrants new trial | Defendants: exclusion within trial court discretion; no reversible error | Held: Trial court committed legal error in excluding relevant evidence; reversal and new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R.R. Co., 344 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1953) (evidence of alternative methods and surrounding circumstances may create a jury question on negligence under FELA)
- Stillman v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 811 F.2d 834 (4th Cir. 1987) (alternative-method evidence can be excluded when the method used is shown to be reasonably safe; it does not categorically bar alternatives)
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1957) (under FELA, even the slightest evidence of negligence may warrant liability)
- Blair v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1945) (employer’s negligence may be determined by viewing its conduct as a whole under FELA)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (federal common law governs substantive negligence under FELA)
- Robinson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 103 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (evidence that employer failed to provide safety tools generally used in the industry is relevant to breach of duty)