Combs v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.

Decision Date06 November 1998
Docket NumberRecord No. 980024.
Citation256 Va. 490,507 S.E.2d 355
PartiesBobby Ray COMBS v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

C. Richard Cranwell (H. Keith Moore; Cranwell, Moore & Bullington, on briefs), Roanoke, for appellant.

William B. Poff (Frank K. Friedman; Leslie E. Hagie; Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, on brief), Roanoke, for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

KEENAN, Justice.

In this appeal, we consider two issues raised in an action brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (the FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60. First, we address whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a biomechanical engineer to state an expert opinion regarding the cause of the plaintiff's injury. Second, we consider whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to present evidence of safer work methods the plaintiff could have used in performing the task that resulted in his alleged injury.

In November 1992, Bobby Ray Combs allegedly was injured while employed as a sheet metal worker for the Norfolk and Western Railway Company (N & W). At the time of his alleged injury, Combs was in the process of fabricating two stainless steel templates for the bottom of a porcelain toilet which was to be installed in a passenger railroad car. Combs and a co-worker, Siegfried Hofmann, began work on the project on a Friday. At the end of the day, they left the unfinished project on Hofmann's workbench.

When work resumed on Monday, Hofmann was assigned to another task, leaving Combs to finish fabricating the templates. When Combs attempted to turn the toilet onto its side to remove the underlying template, the toilet slipped from his grasp. As Combs lunged forward to catch it, he felt a sharp pain in his lower back. One month later, Combs underwent surgery for a ruptured lumbar disc.

Combs filed suit against N & W under the FELA, alleging that N & W failed to provide safe and suitable tools and equipment, safe methods of work, and sufficient manpower to perform the assigned task. In response, N & W denied that it violated any duty owed to Combs, and alleged that Combs' injury was caused solely by his own negligence or, in the alternative, that Combs' negligence significantly contributed to the accident.

Before trial, Combs filed a motion in limine, requesting that the court prohibit N & W from presenting evidence of safer, alternative methods Combs could have used to perform his task. Combs argued that the holding in Stillman v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 811 F.2d 834 (4th Cir.1987), should be applied to prohibit N & W from asserting that he could have performed the job in a safer manner. The trial court denied Combs' motion, ruling that since Combs contended N & W was negligent in assigning a "two-person" job to one person, N & W was entitled to present evidence that the task could have been performed safely by one person.

At trial, a metal table that was the same width and height as Hofmann's workbench was placed in the courtroom and admitted in evidence as an exhibit. However, the table was shorter in length than Hofmann's workbench and had a smooth surface, while Hofmann's workbench had a grooved pattern on its surface for use in measuring materials. A porcelain toilet that was the same model as the one involved in the accident, and a stainless steel template of the same size as the one made by Combs, were placed on the table. During the trial, several witnesses referred to these exhibits and used them to illustrate aspects of their testimony.

The following evidence was presented at the trial. Combs testified that, when he departed from work on Friday, he left the toilet on top of the first unfinished template. He stated that he had to move the toilet off the template Monday morning to complete the job. Combs also stated that he twice told his supervisor, Kersey R. Harper, that he needed Hofmann's assistance to complete the job, but was told that Hofmann was unavailable and that Combs should just do the best he could.

Harper testified that Combs and Hofmann had completely finished one template on Friday. Both Harper and the general foreman, David Carr, testified that the work remaining to be done on the second template on Monday required only one worker and did not require Combs to lift the toilet or to turn it on its side. Both Harper and Carr testified and demonstrated that one person easily could move the toilet off the template by "scoot[ing]" or rocking the toilet.

Harper, Carr, and one of Combs' co-workers, David Jones, all testified that it was common practice for employees to ask another employee to help them when assistance was needed. Jones stated that he was working at his workbench about twelve feet away from Combs at the time of the accident, but that Combs did not request his assistance.

Carr also stated that N & W had a standing rule that if an employee believed a task could not be done safely, he was required to halt the task and to report the problem to a supervisor. Combs acknowledged that he was aware of this policy. According to Harper, although Combs inquired twice about Hofmann's whereabouts on the morning in question, Combs did not state that he needed help in completing the job.

Michael Shinnick, who has a doctoral degree in education, testified as an expert in ergonomics. He stated that when the toilet slipped to a 45 ° angle, Combs "absorbed or had the control of a hundred and ten pounds of force in his right hand 24 inches in front of his body."

Dr. Robert Widmeyer, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that Combs had three degenerative discs prior to his injury. He stated that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Combs ruptured a disc when he engaged in the twisting movement in attempting to catch the falling toilet. Dr. Curtiss Mull, an orthopedic surgeon who examined Combs at the request of N & W, testified that this particular event could have caused Combs' ruptured disk.

N & W presented the testimony of Daniel J. Schneck, Ph.D., who qualified as an expert witness on the subject of biomechanical engineering. Schneck's educational background included a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, a master's degree in medical science, and a Ph.D. in fluid, thermal, and aerospace sciences, with a specialization in biomedical engineering. Although he had completed all the academic work required for a medical degree, Schneck had not completed a medical internship or residency and was not licensed to practice medicine. He is a professor of engineering, science, and mechanics and is the director of the biomedical engineering program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Combs asked the trial court to prohibit Schneck from stating an opinion regarding the cause of Combs' ruptured disc. Combs argued that since Schneck was not a medical doctor, he was not qualified to render an "expert medical opinion" about the cause of a particular injury. The trial court denied Combs' motion, ruling that such testimony was within Schneck's expertise.

Using Combs' own description of how he turned the toilet onto its side, Schneck testified that the twisting movement used by Combs resulted in a "G load" of 0.194 on Combs' spine. Schneck explained that one G load is equal to a person's body weight, and that ".194 G's [is] 0.194 G's over and above the one G." Schneck compared the load force placed on Combs' spine to the force generated by starting a lawn mower, "plopp[ing] down" into a chair, or hopping off a step.

Schneck's testimony also included the following colloquy with N & W's counsel:

Question: Would the task of one person turning a commode such as this on its side pose a danger of rupturing a disk beyond that normally associated with normal daily activities?

Answer: Not at all.
....

Question: [A]re you aware that Mr. Combs did have degeneration in his lower three disks which would explain, I guess, a lot of what you are talking about?

Answer: That is correct. It is conceivable that the degeneration on this particular day was of such a nature that there was material that had oozed out of the disk and because of the way he turned, the way he moved, whatever it was that he physically did, he became aware that there was a problem in his back.

It became symptomatic, but it didn't rupture the disk at that instant in time.
....
A very benign activity can cause a ruptured disk to become symptomatic.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of N & W. The trial court overruled Combs' motion to set aside the verdict and entered judgment in favor of N & W. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Combs argues that the trial court erred in allowing Schneck to give an opinion regarding the cause of Combs' ruptured disk. Combs does not challenge Schneck's qualifications as a biomechanical engineer, and agrees that the field of biomechanics is related to the field of medicine. Combs also concedes that Schneck was qualified to testify about the compression forces placed on Combs' spine at the time of the injury. Combs objects, however, to Schneck's testimony concerning the cause of Combs' ruptured disc, arguing that only a licensed, medical doctor is qualified to render such an opinion.

In response, N & W contends that since the study of biomechanics includes the application of scientific and engineering principles to determine forces exerted on the human body, Schneck was qualified to state an expert opinion regarding the cause of Combs' injury. N & W also asserts that Schneck's entire testimony was admissible to rebut Michael Shinnick's testimony concerning the forces placed on Combs' spine at the time of his injury. We disagree with N & W.

The issue whether a witness is qualified to render an expert opinion is a question submitted to the sound discretion of the trial court. Poliquin v. Daniels, 254 Va. 51, 57, 486 S.E.2d 530, 534 (1997); King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71, 78, 471 S.E.2d 481, 485 (1996); Tazewell Oil...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Watson v. Inco Alloys Intern., Inc.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 9, 2001
    ...engineer's opinion that a wing nut could not have caused the type of eye injury sustained by plaintiff); Combs v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 256 Va. 490, 507 S.E.2d 355 (1998) (concluding that trial court properly excluded testimony of biomechanical engineer discussing medical characteristics of......
  • Epps v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 26, 2005
    ...behalf evidence of the same character, he waives his earlier objection to the admission of that evidence." Combs v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 256 Va. 490, 499, 507 S.E.2d 355, 360 (1998) (holding plaintiff waived objection where plaintiff objected to defendant's use of work bench as demonstrat......
  • Jones v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 1, 2002
    ...has waived this argument because she elicited much of the evidence about which she now complains. See Combs v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 256 Va. 490, 499, 507 S.E.2d 355, 360 (1998); Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 1, 9, 413 S.E.2d 875, 879 In her second challenge to Brackett's testimony,......
  • Shaw v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 2024
    ... ... same character,'" id. (quoting Combs v ... Norfolk & W. Ry. Co ., 256 Va. 490, 499 (1998)), ... "as well as evidence ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT