Wardwell v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
47 N.E.3d 356
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Christopher Wardwell, a Union Pacific employee, was seriously injured on August 9, 2008 when a van owned/operated for Union Pacific and driven by its agent Regeania Goodwin was rear-ended by an intoxicated driver, Erin Behnken.
- Goodwin was a professional driver trained by the Smith System; she admitted failing to check mirrors/blank spot before changing lanes.
- Plaintiff sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) alleging employer negligence; defendant argued the sole cause was Behnken’s intoxicated driving.
- Trial court allowed defendant to present a sole-cause defense that a nonrailroad third party was entirely responsible; jury returned verdict for defendant.
- Plaintiff moved for JNOV/new trial arguing FELA precludes a sole-cause defense when there is any evidence the railroad contributed; trial court denied and plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate majority reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in permitting the sole-cause defense because plaintiff produced evidence from which a jury could reasonably find the railroad’s negligence played any part in the injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant could present a sole-cause defense based on a nonrailroad third party in a FELA case | Wardwell: FELA prohibits apportionment and a sole-cause defense is improper when any evidence shows the railroad contributed | Union Pacific: Jury must be allowed to consider evidence that a third party was the sole cause; factual disputes for the jury | Reversed: If any evidence (even circumstantial) permits a jury to find employer negligence contributed at all, a sole-cause defense based on a nonrailroad third party is impermissible under FELA; exclude defendant’s sole-cause defense on remand |
| Whether trial court erred in giving defendant’s instruction No. 3 and refusing plaintiff’s proffered instructions | Wardwell: Instructions permitting sole-cause affirmative defense misstate FELA law | Union Pacific: Jury instruction appropriate to allow consideration of sole-cause theory | Not reached on merits — decision to remand makes instruction issues moot; trial court directed to prohibit sole-cause defense |
| Admissibility of certain evidence (lay witness causation opinions, insurance payment, alcohol consumption) | Wardwell: Some admission was improper and prejudicial | Union Pacific: Evidence was relevant to causation and credibility | Not decided as to prejudice; appellate court gave guidance on lay-opinion rules for remand |
| Proper scope of cross-examining plaintiff’s expert about relied-upon eyewitness reports | Wardwell: Invading jury province if expert testifies passengers said "sole cause" | Union Pacific: Cross-examination permissible to attack basis of expert’s opinions | Appellate guidance: Expert may be cross-examined on materials he reviewed; lay opinion admissible if rationally based on perception and helpful (Ill. R. Evid. 701, 704); trial court to assess helpfulness on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135 (2003) (FELA allows employee to recover full damages from railroad if employer’s negligence played any part; damages not apportioned between railroad and nonrailroad causes)
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) (jury question exists if proofs justify that employer negligence played any part in injury)
- Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 361 U.S. 138 (1959) (no jury question where record lacks evidence railroad contributed to accident involving third-party intoxicated driver)
- Coffey v. Northeast Ill. Reg’l Commuter R.R. Corp., 479 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2007) (multiple contributing factors do not bar recovery if employer negligence played any part)
- Freeding-Skokie Roll-Off Serv., Inc. v. Hamilton, 108 Ill. 2d 217 (1985) (Illinois: lay witness opinions that collision "could not have been avoided" were superfluous and their admission reversible error)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (1992) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial: whether verdict is against manifest weight of the evidence)