359 P.3d 158
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jacob M. Williams, a BNSF locomotive engineer, injured his left shoulder while setting a handbrake on July 30, 2009; injury later required surgery.
- Williams sued BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act alleging negligent training and unsafe equipment (handbrake use).
- At trial the jury awarded $80,000 in damages and apportioned fault 75% to BNSF, 25% to Williams.
- Before trial BNSF moved to exclude: (1) evidence of a specialized portable “handbrake trailer” used in safety training after the injury, as a subsequent remedial measure; and (2) injury reports from other BNSF employees.
- The district court admitted the trailer evidence and limited admission of other-employee injury reports to those involving handbrake exertion within ten years before Williams’s injury.
- BNSF appealed only the evidentiary rulings; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of handbrake trailer evidence | Trailer shows relevant training/safety practice and bears on feasibility/adequacy of training | Trailer was a subsequent remedial measure under Rule 11‑407 and thus inadmissible | Trailer was developed/used before Williams’s injury, so not a subsequent remedial measure; evidence relevant and admissible |
| Relevance of trailer evidence under Rule 11‑401 | Training evidence tends to prove or disprove negligent training | Irrelevant or unduly prejudicial | Court found trailer evidence relevant to training issue; admissible |
| Prejudice balancing under Rule 11‑403 for trailer evidence | Probative value outweighs any prejudice | Trailer evidence would unfairly prejudice BNSF | Defendant did not meaningfully develop the 11‑403 argument on appeal; issue not addressed further by court |
| Admissibility of other-employee injury reports to show notice | Reports show BNSF had notice of handbrake-related exertion injuries, relevant to training/notice | Reports lack substantial similarity; irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial | Court admitted reports that were substantially similar (overexertion/repetitive motion with handbrakes within ten years); not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 11‑403 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohlson v. Kent Nowlin Constr. Co., 99 N.M. 539, 660 P.2d 1021 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (prior-accident evidence may show existence of a danger or defendant’s knowledge)
- McNeill v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 143 N.M. 740, 182 P.3d 121 (N.M. 2008) (definition of relevance and probative tendency)
- Ponder v. Warren Tool Corp., 834 F.2d 1553 (10th Cir. 1987) (similarity requirement for prior-accident evidence relaxed when evidence is offered to show notice)
- Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2007) (only prior incidents substantially similar to the one at issue are admissible; lesser similarity may suffice for notice)
- Borden, Inc. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 772 F.2d 750 (11th Cir. 1985) (similar occurrences admissible to show notice or magnitude of a defect)