Rafael Lozano v. BNSF Railway Company
2014 Mo. LEXIS 4
| Mo. | 2014Background
- Lozano worked 33 years for BNSF, including 29 as an electrician.
- At injury time, Lozano led locomotive qualification at a Kansas yard facility and found two ETDs wedged behind a refrigerator.
- Lozano removed ETDs from locomotive cabs roughly twice weekly (about 2,900 times in his career).
- He sustained groin pain when lifting ETDs; pain recurred later while disconnecting a snow plow; he had inguinal hernia surgery on June 25, 2007.
- Lozano sued BNSF under FELA; the trial court excluded certain evidence; the jury returned for BNSF; Lozano appealed challenging the evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence that ETDs should not be stored in cabs to prove negligence | Lozano argues alternative storage/location evidence shows safer methods/conditions. | BNSF contends the evidence is irrelevant to Lozano's claims and risks confusion. | Excluded evidence was not relevant to Lozano's claims; no reversible error. |
| Admissibility of evidence that ETDs in cabs pose hazards | Lozano claims cab ETDs show unsafe conditions for moving ETDs. | BNSF argues evidence would confuse and is irrelevant since ETDs were not allowed in cabs. | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence excluded as irrelevant. |
| Admission of expert testimony under section 490.065 | Lozano sought expert opinions on ETD handling under 490.065. | Evidence not relevant to safe methods/conditions; standards of admissibility apply. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence not admitted. |
| Prejudice/harmless error from evidentiary rulings | Excluded evidence could have changed outcome. | Any error was harmless given uncertainty of injury timing and lack of connection to pleaded theories. | Exclusion not prejudicial; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroeck v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n of St. Louis, 305 S.W.2d 18 (Mo.1957) (evidence of alternative methods to perform a task is relevant to negligence)
- Stone v. New York, a & St. L.R. Co., 344 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1953) (alternative work methods/conditions may be admitted under FELA)
- Elliott v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 487 S.W.2d 7 (Mo.1972) (evidence of unsafe conditions can show negligence in safe work conditions)
- Cleghorn v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, 289 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.1956) (railroad could be negligent for failure to provide reasonably safe work conditions)
- Lewis v. Wahl, 842 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. banc 1992) (exclusion of evidence with little probative value is not reversible)
- Sorrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 249 S.W.3d 207 (Mo. banc 2008) (affirming FELA judgment where instructional error was harmless)
- Franklin v. Friedrich, 470 S.W.2d 474 (Mo.1971) (ground of ruling need not be considered if proper ground was established)
- Kivland v. Columbia Orthopaedic Group, LLP, 331 S.W.3d 299 (Mo. banc 2011) (de novo review appropriate when interpreting 490.065; other evidentiary rulings reviewed for relevance)