Case Name: Robert Allen AST v. BSNSF Railway Company
Court: U.S.D.C. Kansas
Date Decided: December 23, 2009
Judge: Judge Bostwick
Citation: 2009 WL 5210843 (D.Kan.)

Background:
Plaintiff, Robert Allen AST, filed this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, FELA, against defendant, BNSF Railway Company. BNSF has filed a Motion to Change Venue to transfer this action from Kansas to the Northern District of Texas.

Allen alleged he sustained permanent, painful, disabling bodily injuries while working for BNSF. Allen further contended that he was attempting to operate a railroad switch which was defective and hard to throw and as a result, injuring himself. Allen further alleged that the switch was defective due to the negligence of BNSF.  

Case Name: BNSF Railway Company v. LaFarge Southwest, Inc.
Date Decided: February 12, 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. New Mexico
Judge: Judge Armijo
Citation: 2009 WL 4279771 (D.N.M.)

Background:
Before this Court was plaintiff’s, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”) Motion in Limine to exclude expert opinions and testimony of claimant’s expert relating to railroad operations.

The action arose from a fatal collision between an eastbound freight train operated by a BNSF Railway Company engineer, and a commercial dump trunk being driven by decedent Carol Duran, a contractor for third party defendant, Lafarge Southwest Inc. (“Lafarge”).

Case Name: Stanley Wilson v. BNSF Railway Company and Anthony Livestock Trucking, LLC, et al.
Date Decided: September 11, 2009
Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas
Judge: Judge McAnany, Judge Elliot, and Judge Caplinger
Citation: 2009 WL 2948656 (Kan.App.)

Background:            
Stanley Wilson (“Wilson”) appealed a jury’s decision on his damages claim following a bifurcated trial on that issue. Wilson alleged that the trial court erred in bifurcating the damages and liability issues and in ordering that the damages be tried first.

Case Name: Curtis Schipper v BNSF Railway Co.
Date of Judgment: 4th April 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. – District of Kansas
Judge: U.S. Magistrate Judge O’Hara
Citation: 2009 WL 997149 (D.Kan.)

Background: This suit arose out of a motorcycle-automobile collision between the plaintiff, Curtis Schipper, and Michael Morgan. Both Schipper and Morgan were employees of the defendant, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”). They were both staying at a hotel while attending a training program put on by BNSF.

Schipper alleged he was injured as the result of the accident and brought a negligence claim against BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”).

Jury trial was scheduled to begin on April 20, 2009. The Court convened on April 13, 2009, to hold a status and limine conference. During this time, each party submitted their motions in limine. The Court then ruled on the motions.

Schipper submitted 13 subparts to their motion. The Court only listed the unopposed motions in their Order. BNSF submitted 17 subparts, and the Court accordingly listed only those unopposed motions. Schipper also submitted a motion to compel railroad employee witnesses at trial.

Issue: Whether the Court (1) will grant Schipper and/or BNSF’s motions in limine and, (2) whether the Court will grant Schipper’s motion to compel.

Held:
For a motion in limine, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible on any relevant ground.

The Court held that Schipper’s motion in limine was granted in 9 subparts and denied in 4 subparts.

Following, the Court held that Defendant’s motion in limine was granted in 13 subparts, and denied in 4 subparts.

Finally the Court denied Schipper’s motion to compel the railroad employee witnesses at trial. The trial commenced on April 20, 2009.

Comments:

The Court, in trying to decide whether to grant a motion in limine, looks to the moving party to demonstrate the evidence is inadmissible. Any motion may be denied when it lacks specificity with respect to evidence to be excluded. At trial, the Court may alter their motion in limine ruling based on developments at either trial or their own sound discretion.

A ruling in limine does not prevent a party from the responsibility of making objections, raising motions to strike or making formal offers of proof during the course of trial.

Steve Gordon
http://www.gordon-elias.com