Rentz v. BNSF Railway Co., 952 N.W.2d 47

Background

July 2012: David Rentz (truck driver) was struck by a BNSF-operated train at a public grade crossing; Rentz sued BNSF and engineer Reinaldo Guitian in 2015.
January 2019: Eleven-day jury trial; Guitian was permitted to remain in the courtroom as BNSF’s designated trial representative under N.D.R.Ev. 615(b).
Central factual dispute: whether BNSF failed to control trackside vegetation and thereby obstructed sightlines at the crossing.
On cross-examination, Guitian—who repeatedly testified he lacked personal knowledge about vegetation policies and maintenance decisions—was nevertheless questioned about BNSF’s internal vegetation-control rules, interrogatory answers, and corporate decision-making.
Jury returned verdict allocating 85% fault to BNSF; the district court denied BNSF’s motion for a new trial.
North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the court erred in allowing the designated representative to testify beyond his personal knowledge and that the error affected BNSF’s substantial right to a fair trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 615(b) trial representative may be examined about corporate policies/decisions without personal knowledge	Rentz treated Guitian as BNSF’s corporate representative and argued his testimony could bind BNSF and show admissions about vegetation policies	BNSF argued designation under Rule 615(b) does not eliminate Rule 602’s personal-knowledge requirement or substitute for Rule 30(b)(6) organizational testimony	Court held it was error to require Guitian to testify beyond his personal knowledge; Rule 615 does not supplant Rule 602 or Rule 30(b)(6); error warranted new trial because it affected a substantial right
Use of deposition audio/video clips in opening/closing	Rentz used clips to highlight admissions and support liability theory	BNSF objected that use was improper and prejudicial	Court declined to resolve on appeal as remand mooted need to decide
Use of BNSF internal operating procedures to define standard of care (preemption/weight)	Rentz argued BNSF’s internal rules evidence of the proper safety standard and admissions of noncompliance	BNSF argued federal law or evidentiary limits prevent internal policies from changing legal standard; admission was prejudicial	Court did not resolve on appeal due to remand
Exclusion/admission of investigating trooper’s opinion testimony	Rentz relied on factual testimony and disputed the need for officer opinion; (trial evidence context)	BNSF contended the trooper’s opinion should have been admitted as helpful expert/fact witness	Court did not reach the issue on appeal because case was remanded

Key Cases Cited

Nesvig v. Nesvig, 712 N.W.2d 299 (N.D. 2006) (purpose of sequestration is preventing witnesses from influencing one another).
State v. Buchholz, 678 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 2004) (sequestration aids discovery of false testimony and credibility issues).
United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2003) (explaining the purpose of Rule 615 under the federal rules).
State v. Acker, 871 N.W.2d 603 (N.D. 2015) (defines harmless-error inquiry in criminal context).
Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) (describes civil harmless-error review and when an error has a ‘substantial influence’ on outcome).
Johnson v. Buskohl Constr., Inc., 871 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 2015) (applied harmless-error rule and reversed where inadmissible evidence might have affected the award).
Haider v. Moen, 914 N.W.2d 520 (N.D. 2018) (standard for abuse of discretion review).