Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., Nos. A09–2212

• Decision Date: 19 April 2012
• Docket Number: Nos. A09–2212,A09–2215.,A09–2213,A09–2214
• Parties: Michael D. FRAZIER, as Trustee for the Next–of–Kin of Brian L. Frazier, deceased, Appellant (A09–2212),Harry James Rhoades, Sr., as Trustee for the Next–of–Kin of Harry James Rhoades, Jr., deceased, Appellant (A09–2213),Denise Renee Shannon, as Trustee for the Next–of–Kin of Bridgette Marie Shannon, deceased, Appellant (A09–2214),Elizabeth Chase, as Trustee for the Next–of–Kin of Corey Everett Chase, deceased, Appellant (A09–2215), v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION, et al., Respondents (A09–2212, A09–2213, A09–2214, A09–2215),Richard P. Wright, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Corey E. Chase, deceased, Appellant (A09–2212),Cristy Y. Frazier, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Brian Frazier, deceased, Appellant (A09–2213, A09–2214, A09–2215),BNSF Railway Company, third-party plaintiff, Respondent (A09–2213, A09–2214, A09–2215), v. Richard P. Wright, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Corey Everett Chase, deceased, Appellant (A09–2213, A09–2214, A09–2215).
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

811 N.W.2d 618

Michael D. FRAZIER, as Trustee for the Next–of–Kin of Brian L. Frazier, deceased, Appellant (A09–2212),Harry James Rhoades, Sr., as Trustee for the Next–of–Kin of Harry James Rhoades, Jr., deceased, Appellant (A09–2213),Denise Renee Shannon, as Trustee for the Next–of–Kin of Bridgette Marie Shannon, deceased, Appellant (A09–2214),Elizabeth Chase, as Trustee for the Next–of–Kin of Corey Everett Chase, deceased, Appellant (A09–2215),

v.BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION, et al., Respondents (A09–2212, A09–2213, A09–2214, A09–2215),Richard P. Wright, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Corey E. Chase, deceased, Appellant (A09–2212),Cristy Y. Frazier, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Brian Frazier, deceased, Appellant (A09–2213, A09–2214, A09–2215),BNSF Railway Company, third-party plaintiff, Respondent (A09–2213, A09–2214, A09–2215),

v.Richard P. Wright, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Corey Everett Chase, deceased, Appellant (A09–2213, A09–2214, A09–2215).

Nos. A09–2212

A09–2213

A09–2214

A09–2215.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 28, 2012.As Modified April 19, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Respondent BNSF Railway Company is not entitled to a new trial because any error in the special verdict form and in the instructions to the jury on BNSF's duty of care did not affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent BNSF Railway Company's motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, improperly admitted evidence, or the instruction given to the jury on the adverse inference to be drawn from respondent's failure to produce certain evidence at trial.

Patrick J. Sauter, Mark R. Bradford, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellants Michael D. Frazier and Cristy Y. Frazier.

William O. Bongard, Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum, & Carey, Ltd., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant Harry James Rhoades, Sr.

Allan F. Shapiro, Finn Shapiro, St. Louis Park, MN, for appellant Denise Renee Shannon.Sharon L. Van Dyck, Van Dyck Law Firm, PLLC, St. Louis Park, MN; and Robert L. Pottroff, Pottroff Law Office, P.A., Manhattan, KS; and Paul E. Godlewski, Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant Elizabeth Chase.Timothy R. Thornton, Sam Hanson, Jonathan P. Schmidt, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondents Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company, and BNSF Railway Company.Paul E.D. Darsow, on behalf of Dan Saphire, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak, and Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Association of American Railroads.Wilbur W. Fluegel, Fluegel Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association for Justice.

OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

The chief issue presented in this wrongful-death case is whether respondent BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) is entitled to a new trial on liability as a result of an allegedly erroneous instruction to the jury on the railroad's duty of care. The district court instructed the jury, without objection from BNSF, to apply a common-law or “reasonable person” standard of care. After the jury returned a verdict in appellants' favor,¹ BNSF moved for a new trial on several grounds, including that it could be held liable only if appellants proved that the railroad failed to comply with a different standard of care, namely, the standard of care established by applicable federal regulations. A divided court of appeals concluded the district court's instruction to the jury and special verdict form using a common-law duty of care constituted plain error that substantially affected BNSF's rights and the fairness and integrity of the proceedings, and remanded the matter to the district court for a new trial.

We assume, without deciding, that the instruction to the jury and special verdict question were plain error that substantially affected BNSF's rights, but we conclude that any error in the instructions and verdict form did not affect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. We therefore reverse the court of appeals on this point. Although the court of appeals did not address the district court's denial of BNSF's motion for a new trial, we address it in the interest of judicial economy. We affirm the district court's denial of the new trial motion on all grounds asserted by BNSF: improperly admitted evidence, newly discovered evidence, and the instruction given to the jury on the adverse inference to be drawn from BNSF's failure to produce certain evidence at trial.

On September 26, 2003, a collision at the Ferry Street crossing in Anoka between a Chevrolet Cavalier and a freight train owned and operated by the BNSF Railway Company resulted in the deaths of all four occupants of the car: Brian Frazier, Bridgette Shannon, Corey Chase, and Harry Rhoades. The representatives of the estates of Frazier, Shannon, Chase, and Rhoades brought separate wrongful death claims against BNSF, alleging that BNSF had negligently maintained the warning signals at the Ferry Street crossing and had failed to comply with several state and federal regulations governing maintenance of the railroad tracks and the crossing signals.

BNSF denied that it had negligently maintained the crossing and asserted that the driver of the Cavalier had driven around the fully-lowered crossing gates into the path of the train. BNSF further asserted, as an affirmative defense, “that at all material times hereto ... it fully complied with the standard of care expected of similar railroads operating under similar circumstances.” But BNSF never moved to dismiss appellants' claims based on its compliance with applicable federal regulations. And in its motion for summary judgment, BNSF did not assert that its compliance with applicable federal regulations was sufficient to meet its duty of care toward appellants. Rather, BNSF asserted that it was entitled to judgment because railroads “are entitled to summary judgment when there are functioning warning gates,” citing Reales v. Conrail, 84 F.3d 993 (7th Cir.1996), and Ayoub v. Amtrak, 76 F.3d 794 (6th Cir.1996), and “there is overwhelming and undisputed evidence proving the gates and lights were activated and operating properly at the time of the accident.”

After a lengthy period of discovery, the claims of the four appellants were consolidated and the trial was bifurcated between liability and damages. In his opening statement, trial counsel for BNSF (BNSF's appellate counsel did not represent it at trial) told the jury the case would “break[ ] down, from the railroad's perspective, into four main points.” The first of those points, BNSF's counsel told the jury, was that the “state-of-the-art BNSF signal system provided proper and adequate warning and was working as intended [on] September 26, 2003.” BNSF's counsel continued: “There's overwhelming evidence that the signal system was working properly the night of the accident, and it will be appropriate for you to find as much when it gets to the special verdict form.”

During trial, appellants presented evidence that the crossing gates at the Ferry Street crossing had failed to function properly on three previous occasions. Accident reconstructionists retained by appellants testified that the Cavalier was in its proper lane when it was struck by the train, disputing BNSF's claim that the car had driven around the lowered crossing gates. Appellants also introduced testimony of several BNSF employees who had performed repairs on the tracks at the Ferry Street crossing before the accident and expert testimony to explain the purported failure of the warning signals to activate in time for the driver of the Cavalier to stop short of the crossing.

BNSF advanced the theory that the Cavalier drove around the lowered gate and onto the track. To support that theory, BNSF presented an accident reconstruction report prepared by the Minnesota State Patrol, expert testimony, and the eyewitness accounts of the train's engineer and conductor. BNSF also introduced the testimony of its own employees and experts that the track and signal warning system had been properly maintained and that any repair work done on the crossing before the accident had been performed appropriately.

Before the close of trial, the parties submitted proposed jury instructions and special verdict forms to the district court. Appellants' proposed jury instructions, in relevant part, included Civil Jury Instruction Guide (CIVJIG) 25.10, which defines “negligence” as “the failure to use reasonable care” and defines “reasonable care” as “the care a reasonable person would use in the same or similar circumstances.” 4 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass'n, Minnesota Practice—Jury Instruction Guides, Civil, CIVJIG 25.10 (5th ed.2006). Appellants also proposed that the jury be instructed that, at the time of the accident, “there were seven federal regulations in force that set out the law that a railroad must follow” and “seven Minnesota state regulations in force that set out the law that a railroad must follow.” Appellants requested that the federal regulations—setting forth, among other responsibilities, the railroad's duty to investigate “a credible report of a warning system malfunction,” to repair “any essential component of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system [that] fails to perform its intended function,” and to periodically test highway-rail crossing warning systems—be read to the jury. Appellants further requested that the jury be instructed that a violation of one or more of the regulations, “although not necessarily negligence, is evidence of negligence to be considered by you along with all of the other facts and circumstances in this case.” Finally, appellants requested that the jury be instructed using CIVJIG 25.46, modified as follows:

There is evidence in this case that defendant BNSF followed a legal duty written into law...