Tripp v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
2025 IL App (1st) 231844-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Kenneth Tripp, a conductor, sued Union Pacific Railroad (UP) after a workplace fall in March 2015 allegedly caused by malfunctioning train equipment, seeking damages for resulting injuries including complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and mild traumatic brain injury.
- Tripp brought claims under the Safety Appliance Act (SAA) for alleged coupler defects and under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) for failure to maintain safe equipment conditions.
- During discovery, UP failed to disclose surveillance videos of Tripp that were later produced only after the trial had begun, despite specific interrogatory requests for such materials.
- The trial court excluded some of Tripp's rebuttal evidence, admitted the late-produced surveillance videos, granted summary judgment on the SAA claim for UP, and the jury ruled in UP's favor on the LIA claim.
- Tripp appealed, challenging the admission of the surveillance videos, the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings, alleged judicial bias, and summary judgment on the SAA claim.
- The appellate court focused on whether the discovery violation regarding the surveillance video and the summary judgment on the SAA claim were reversible errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Late-Disclosed Surveillance Video | Tripp: Videos should have been barred as sanction for discovery violation; prejudiced his credibility | UP: Work product until use decision; produced before Tripp testified; no prejudice | Court: Admitting videos was abuse of discretion; prejudicial given Tripp’s credibility central—reversed and remanded |
| Summary Judgment on SAA Claim | Tripp: Disputed facts about whether coupler was defective, requiring jury decision | UP: No evidence of defect; inspections post-incident showed no coupler defect | Court: Genuine dispute of material fact existed; summary judgment inappropriate—reversed |
| Plaintiff’s Conduct (contributory negligence) | Tripp: His conduct post-discovery of broken gladhand irrelevant under strict liability | UP: Tripp’s conduct was sole proximate cause, not defective equipment | Court: With credibility at center, evidentiary error regarding videos required reversal/remand |
| Rebuttal Evidence Exclusion | Tripp: Should have been allowed to introduce rebuttal deposition (Jason Webb) | UP: Exclusion justified; summary judgment correct | Court: Did not reach, since new trial ordered due to central evidentiary error |
Key Cases Cited
- Klingelhoets v. Charlton-Perrin, 2013 IL App (1st) 112412 (Illinois Appellate Court clarified that Illinois discovery rules are mandatory and sanctions available for violations)
- Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 (Described factors to consider in discovery sanctions)
- Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass’n, 2020 IL 124107 (Summarized standards for summary judgment and the need for factual disputes to go to a jury)
- Affolder v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R.R. Co, 339 U.S. 96 (Defined railroad defenses for SAA claims when couplers are not properly positioned for automatic coupling)
- Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Hiles, 516 U.S. 400 (Discussed extension of Affolder defense in SAA claims)
- DeBiasio v. Illinois Central R.R., 52 F.3d 678 (Outlined SAA violation theories and evidence needed for defect claims)
- Williams v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co., 83 Ill. 2d 559 (Emphasized discovery as a cooperative process and not a tactical game)