Case Name: Freda Ratliff v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Date Decided: March, 12, 2009
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Judge: Judge Davis
Citation: 680 S.E.2d 28

Background:

The estate of a locomotive engineer, who died from mesothelioma,  brought an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) against railroad Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk”). The lower Court granted Norfolk’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff, Ratliff, appealed.

Mr. Ratliff, the deceased, worked for Norfolk for nearly 40 years.  Upon reaching the age of 60, Mr. Ratliff received several documents explaining a voluntary separation or early retirement program. The purpose of the program was to reduce staffing levels in order to reduce employment costs by replacing or eliminating certain positions.

Case Name: CSX Transportation v Richard Bickerstaff
Date Decided: August 26, 2009
Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Judge: Judge Woodward
Citation: 2009 WL 2619691 (Md.App.)

Background:
This case involved the consolidated actions of nine railroad employees, including Richard Bickerstaff, seeking relieve under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) for cumulative trauma injuries sustained during the course of their employment with CSX Transportation Inc (“CSX”).

Case Name: Michele Collins v National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Date Decided: August 27, 2009
Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Judge: Judge Woodward
Citation: 2009 WL 2619548 (Md.App.)

Background:
Michele Collins, (“Collins”) brought an action pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) and the Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”) following the death of her husband, Robert Collins, who worked for defendant National Railroad Corporation (“Amtrak”).

Case Name: Judd E. Uhl v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Date Decided: June 18, 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. Southern District of West Virginia
Judge: Judge Chambers
Citation: 2009 WL 1749372

Background:
Defendant, CSX Transportation (CSX), presented before this court Motions in Limine to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Regarding Improper Ballast and Strawberry Farm Crossing as an Alternative Boarding Location.

Plaintiff, Judd E. Uhl (Uhl), was employed as a conductor for CSX, an owner and operator of various railroad tracks and yards as a common carrier in interstate commerce.

Uhl alleges that on or about June 12, 2005, he was working for CSX when he attempted to board one of CSX’s locomotives. Uhl contended that CSX negligently permitted coal to accumulate on and cover the ballast comprising the track bed. When Uhl attempted to board the locomotive, his foot rolled on the coal causing him to fall and injure his finger.

Uhl brought an

Issue:
Did the Court grant Defendant’s motion in limine to Exclude Testimony or Evidence?

Held:
CSX contended that Uhl should be prohibited from making claims concerning the railroad ballast because all such claims are preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). This Court granted, in part, CSX’s motion and prevented Uhl from presenting evidence or testimony that the ballast itself was improper or defective. Uhl contended that CSX negligently allowed coal to accumulate on top of the ballast.

CSX further argued that allowing Uhl to offer evidence or testimony of coal accumulation on the ballast would contravene FRSA’s state purpose of ensuring that “laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable”.

Under the Act a State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent laws related to railroad safety so long as it is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the US Government. CSX argues that allowing a claim under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) it would essentially be incompatible with FRSA.

This Court held that Uhl’s FELA claim does not seek to enforce an additional or more stringent law than what is set forth under FRSA. The duty of railroads to refrain from negligently causing injury is a separate and distinct duty stemming from FELA.

Furthermore, CSX argues that regulations have already been promulgated that govern ballast standards and because Uhl did not claim noncompliance with the regulation he cannot claim a higher standard under FELA.

However, this Court rejected CSX’s contention because Uhl alleged CSX negligently permitted coal to accumulate in his work area alongside the track.

CSX also argued that although the Federal Railroad Administration has jurisdiction to regulate trackside walkways their choice not to do so means that Uhl cannot maintain his claim that CSX negligently permitted coal to accumulate on the ballast that formed the track bed alongside the track. However, Uhl did not allege that he slipped on a trackside walkway.

Finally, this Court allowed Uhl to introduce evidence to establish whether CSX could or should have provided an alternate boarding location.

Comment:
A motion in limine is a motion made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may or may not be introduced to the jury in a trial.

Motions in limine are potentially damaging to litigants because if certain evidence is kept from the jury’s purview it may be detrimental to a claim or defense.

Steve Gordon
http://www.Gordon-Elias.com