Junod v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-13-2393,1-13-2393 |
| Parties | PAUL JUNOD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County
Honorable Robert J. Clifford, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: We affirm the judgment of the circuit court on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on a claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, ruling that: (1) judgment notwithstanding the verdict was not warranted on the plaintiff's claim that the defendant railroad failed to supply reasonably safe tools and equipment for changing shock absorbers on a locomotive; (2) a new trial was not warranted based on the trial judge's evidentiary rulings; and (3) the railroad was not entitled to a remittitur of the jury's award of lost future earnings.
¶ 2 Following a jury trial, the circuit court of Cook County entered judgment on a verdict infavor of plaintiff Paul Junod (Junod) and against defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC) in the amount of $704,031 on Junod's claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) (46 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (2000)). On appeal, IC contends: (1) IC was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (2) or, in the alternative, was entitled to a new trial based on the trial judge's evidentiary rulings; and (3) IC was entitled to a $414,524 remittitur of the jury's $558,647 award for lost earnings. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 4 On January 30, 2009, Junod filed a complaint against IC in the circuit court of Cook County. Junod alleged that on or about June 28, 2006, he was injured while working as a machinist in changing shock absorbers on a locomotive. Junod claimed IC breached its duties by failing to provide a reasonably safe place to work and failing to provide him with reasonably safe tools with which to perform his task.
¶ 5 The parties engaged in pretrial discovery, including the disclosure of witnesses and the subjects of their testimony. Junod disclosed he might call various acquaintances, friends, neighbors, colleagues, coworkers and IC employees "with respect to [p]laintiff's damages, the effect said injury had on him, to discuss the working environment at [IC] and the standards and practices while on the job at [IC] working as a mechanic, tool issuance, training/safety, tools requests and/or complaints and regarding the same and supervision ***." One of the individuals listed in this disclosure was named Ray Trent (Trent).
¶ 7 Prior to trial, the parties also filed a number of motions in limine. The motions pertinent to this appeal are IC's motion in limine No. 6, and Junod's motion in limine No. 33.
¶ 8 IC's motion in limine No. 6 claimed Junod brought the action as the result of an incidentin which he fractured his wrist while working as a machinist. According to this motion, Junod claimed he fell while removing a bolt on a vertical shock absorber with a 1 1/16-inch end wrench and a breaker bar. Junod claimed he was given inadequate tools because he was not provided with deep well sockets or an impact gun with adequate torque. Junod claimed he requested better tools, but IC did not respond to these requests.
¶ 9 IC's motion in limine No. 6 sought to exclude testimony that Junod was issued new tools when he returned to work following the incident, on the grounds that: (1) IC was not required to provide the latest or best tools to Junod; and (2) such testimony would be improper evidence of a subsequent remedial measure. The trial judge ruled that Junod could not use testimony to show subsequent remedial measures and could not refer to the tools issued after the incident as "new" or "better," or use similar adjectives.
¶ 10 The trial judge granted Junod's motion in limine No. 33, which barred testimony, evidence, or argument that the defective tools and equipment were a cause of his injuries.
¶ 13 The trial commenced on October 10, 2012. Junod testified he began working as a journeyman machinist for IC in January 2005. The position involved inspecting locomotives and their safety features, checking the water and oil, testing the headlights, and ensuring the wheels were in good shape. Machinists would also repair and occasionally replace diesel engines, as well as the trucks and the wheels beneath the locomotive.
¶ 14 IC did not allow machinists to use their own tools. IC provided Junod with a toolbox that included wrenches, a set of chrome sockets and an impact gun, but no impact sockets. According to Junod, IC never issued him a single impact socket.
¶ 15 On June 27, 2006, Junod volunteered to come in to the shop for an overtime shift from 7 p.m. until 11 p.m. The shift required Junod to change the shock absorbers on a Wisconsin Central locomotive. Junod testified he had changed shock absorbers on locomotives on three or four prior occasions, and he would need a high-torque impact gun, a deep well socket, and a 1 ?-inch box wrench to safely complete the task. Junod did not have the socket or wrench. Junod attempted unsuccessfully to borrow these tools from coworkers and could not find them in carts holding specific tools for locomotives. Junod had also requested these tools on multiple occasions from his usual foremen months earlier, but he never received them.
¶ 16 Junod ultimately decided to remove the shock absorbers with a three-quarter breaker bar and a 1 ?-inch box end wrench. Junod testified that the tools were not suitable for the job because the shock absorbers were controlling the sway of a 490,000-pound locomotive and the bolts had been installed with a very heavy-duty tool and were difficult to loosen. According to Junod, IC trained him to use an impact wrench and impact socket when changing shock absorbers.
¶ 17 Junod also selected a three-step platform, approximately two to three feet square, to allow him to work on an elevation. Junod further testified the platform was not suitable, insofar as IC's safety notebook stated that all platforms were to have a guardrail and a toe board. Prior to his injury, Junod had never observed a three-step platform with guardrails made available to the machinists. As there was not sufficient room to rotate the platform 90 degrees, Junod positioned the platform with the front facing the same direction as the front of the locomotive to give him more traction.
¶ 18 Junod further testified that he first attempted to loosen the bolts on the locomotive with his impact gun and a chrome socket, but realized he needed "more sufficient" tools for the job.
Junod then switched to the three-quarter breaker bar with an adapter, and sprayed the bolts with a penetrating oil to help loosen them. Junod positioned himself on the stairs of the platform in order to obtain the most torque and pull from the breaker bar and his wrenches. Junod spread his feet apart on the stair to prepare for the release of pressure that would occur when the bolts would release. Junod had the breaker bar in his left hand and a wrench in his right hand as he worked to loosen the bolts.
¶ 20 According to Junod, when he felt the release of pressure, he flew leftward over the top of the platform. Junod testified he was unable to grab anything to break his fall and landed on his left arm. Junod regained consciousness on the ground near the platform.
¶ 21 Junod was in excruciating pain and his arm appeared to be dislocated. He informed the foreman that his arm was broken, and was transported to the hospital. Following treatment, Junod returned to the Woodcrest shop at approximately 3:30 a.m., in order to assist in a reenactment of the incident with someone employed by the IC risk management department. Junod was never informed of the results of any IC investigation of the incident.
¶ 22 According to Junod, the most difficult part of the treatment for his injury was the uncertainty of his future. Junod testified that he may require additional surgeries in the future and he may lose the use of his left wrist. As a lifelong mechanic, Junod was not sure what he would do in the future if he could not work with his hands. Junod identified his treatment from a Dr. Labana as a high point, because his initial treatment felt like "a step forward, two steps back." Dr. Labana ordered a CAT scan, identified Junod's real problem and was able to repair Junod's wrist.
¶ 23 Junod further testified that he continued to work at IC, but missed 11 months of workafter his injury. According to Junod, at the time of his injury, he was working 40 hours per week at an hourly salary of $21.34. Junod also testified, based on information from his union, he missed approximately 1,500 hours of overtime at an hourly rate of $32 during the 11 months he was not working.
¶ 24 Junod continues to experience tingling and numbness in his left arm and wrist both at work and at home. Junod's coworkers also assisted him with heavier and more difficult tasks.
¶ 25 Junod additionally testified that he began working part-time at Wood Brothers Steel Stamping (Wood Brothers), assisting in building steel dies. He worked at Wood Brothers from 2008 until 2012 and received approximately $16,000 per annum. The Wood Brothers job included using a drill press, a mill, and a lathe. Junod ceased working for Wood Brothers due to pain issues. Once Junod observed his wrist was deteriorating, he sought to extend his time employed by IC. Junod also transferred from IC's Woodcrest shop to the Glen Yard shop at approximately the same time he stopped working for Wood Brothers.
¶ 26 Moreover,...
To continue reading
Request your trial