Crawford v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.

Decision Date09 May 1995
Docket NumberNo. 66106,66106
Citation901 S.W.2d 252
PartiesMary Lu CRAWFORD, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel R. Crawford, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendants-Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Robert William Bosslet Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Albert E. Schoenbeck, St. Louis, for respondent.

WHITE, Judge.

This appeal arises from an action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Mary Lu Crawford, plaintiff, brought an action against Norfolk and Western Railway Company, defendant, seeking damages for the death of her husband while in defendant's employ as an Assistant Train Master. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded her $850,000 in damages. Defendant requested the trial court enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, moved for a new trial. The trial court granted the motion for JNOV and, in the event the JNOV was reversed at the appellate level, granted the motion for new trial. Plaintiff appeals the granting of both motions. We affirm.

Plaintiff's decedent, Daniel R. Crawford, Jr., was employed by defendant as an Assistant Train Master at its Norton, Virginia division. Decedent was the sole railroad official in charge of the Norton yard office for his shift on December 18 and 19, 1987. His shift was from approximately 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Sometime during the evening of December 18, the weather turned colder and sleet began to fall. At about 11:00 p.m., decedent left the Norton yard office to check on the work crews. Decedent drove his own vehicle, a pick-up truck, even though a company four-wheel drive vehicle was available for his use. Decedent's vehicle was equipped with a portable two-way radio. At approximately 12:30 a.m. on December 19, decedent called the Norton yard office and spoke to the radio dispatcher on duty. During the conversation, the dispatcher advised decedent to be careful because of inclement weather conditions. Decedent acknowledged this warning and indicated he was "heading back." However, despite the warning, decedent told the dispatcher to direct one of the work crews to take a taxicab to a different location and continue working. Decedent was found injured in his vehicle at approximately 1:30 a.m. on December 19. Decedent's vehicle, found in a ditch alongside a public highway, appeared to have left the highway and struck a rocky embankment. The vehicle was traveling away from the Norton yard office when the accident occurred. Decedent died approximately eleven weeks later of complications related to the injuries he sustained in the accident.

Plaintiff's case was submitted to a jury on the theory defendant failed to provide reasonably safe working conditions, safe appliances, and safe methods or adequate help. Specifically, plaintiff contends defendant was negligent because it did not have a weather contingency plan in effect or have a weather radio at decedent's work station.

In her first point, plaintiff asserts the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for JNOV. In determining whether plaintiff presented a submissible case, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and give it the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Scott v. Car City Motor Co., Inc., 847 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Mo.App.W.D.1992). However, a defendant's motion for JNOV is properly granted if the motion identifies one or more elements of the plaintiff's case which are not supported by the evidence. School Dist. of Independence v. U.S. Gypsum, 750 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Mo.App.W.D.1988). We review the grant of a motion for JNOV by the trial court as a matter of law. Rhodes v. Marsh, 807 S.W.2d 222, 223 (Mo.App.E.D.1991).

To establish a submissible case under FELA, plaintiff had to show defendant had a duty to provide decedent with a reasonably safe place to work, defendant breached its duty of care, such lack of due care played some part, however slight, in producing the injury complained of, and the injury was reasonably foreseeable. White v. Union Pacific...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Giddens v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company, WD55657
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 29, 2000
    ...Under FELA, an employer has a duty to provide its employees with a reasonably safe place to work. Crawford v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 901 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). The duty of providing a reasonably safe place to work does not require the elimination of all dangers, but it do......
  • Rogers v. Norfolk Southern Corp.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 2000
    ...a safe place to work." Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Trimiew, 253 Va. 22, 480 S.E.2d 104, 106 (1997); see also Crawford v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 901 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Mo.Ct.App.1995); McGraw v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 201 W.Va. 675, 500 S.E.2d 300 (1997). "This duty exists even when the employee......
  • Briggs v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 1996
    ...viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Crawford v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 901 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Mo.App.1995). In determining whether Mr. Briggs produced sufficient evidence to make a submissible case under FELA, this c......
  • Euton v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 12, 1996
    ...negligent. Under the provisions of FELA, an employer has the duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace. Crawford v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 901 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Mo.App.1995). The term "reasonably safe workplace" means that an employer is required to remove those dangers that can be r......
  • 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