Myrick v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
2017 IL App (1st) 161023
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Chevas Myrick, a Union Pacific freight conductor, was dropped off by Belt Railway in a dark, snow-covered, uneven area in a rail yard and injured when he stepped into a snow-covered hole.
- Myrick sued under FELA against Union Pacific and Belt Railway (and pleaded negligence against Belt Railway), alleging the drop-off location was unsafe and that safer, customary drop-off sites existed.
- Before trial the circuit court granted defendants’ motion in limine excluding evidence that safer alternative drop-off locations (Argo and a roadway under the Harlem Avenue bridge) were available and routinely used.
- At trial Myrick offered proof about the alternative locations, but the jury returned a defense verdict; the court denied Myrick’s new-trial motion.
- On appeal the Illinois Appellate Court held state evidentiary law governs admissibility in FELA cases tried in state court, but federal law defines negligence under FELA; it concluded the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in excluding alternative-site evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of safer alternative drop-off locations | Myrick: evidence of customary/available safer drop-off sites is relevant to the standard of care and should be admitted under Illinois evidence rules to show negligence | Defendants: such evidence is irrelevant; FELA asks only whether defendant exercised reasonable care at the accident site, not whether a safer method/location existed | Reversed: court held plaintiff presented some evidence the method/location used was unsafe, so evidence of available safer alternatives was relevant and exclusion was an abuse of discretion |
| Applicable law for evidentiary rulings in FELA cases tried in state court | Myrick: state evidence rules govern admissibility | Defendants: federal law governs duty under FELA, so admissibility should follow federal law | Court: federal law governs substantive negligence definition; state procedural/evidence rules apply to admissibility unless they impair FELA rights |
| Whether Stone v. New York controls | Myrick: Stone supports admitting alternative methods/locations when they inform negligence question | Defendants: rely on Stillman to exclude alternative-method evidence | Court: Stone governs—evidence of alternatives is relevant when there is some evidence the method used might have been unsafe; Stillman does not bar alternatives categorically |
| Standard for excluding alternative-method/location evidence | Myrick: exclusion was premature and deprived jury of context comparing options | Defendants: exclusion proper because employer need not use the best available method | Court: exclusion improper here—once plaintiff shows some evidence the chosen method/place was unsafe, alternative methods/locations may be admissible and jury must decide reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (defines substantive negligence under FELA)
- Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507 (state courts apply state procedural law in FELA actions)
- Brady v. Southern Ry. Co., 320 U.S. 476 (federal law governs sufficiency of evidence in FELA cases)
- Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490 (substantive law for jury instructions in FELA is federal)
- Stone v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R.R. Co., 344 U.S. 407 (evidence of alternative methods/means may be for the jury when reasonableness is debatable)
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (under FELA even slight evidence of negligence can support liability)
- Stillman v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 811 F.2d 834 (4th Cir.) (alternative-method evidence may be excluded where method used is shown to be reasonable; does not establish categorical exclusion)