Robinson v. CSX Transp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 5D11–2815.,5D11–2815.
• Citation: 103 So.3d 1006
• Parties: James ROBINSON, Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

103 So.3d 1006

James ROBINSON, Appellant,

v.CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 5D11–2815.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 21, 2012.

John S. Mills and Andrew D. Manko of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Daniel J. Fleming and Payong V. Puksahome of Melkus, Fleming & Gutierrez, P.L., Tampa, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

James Robinson appeals from the final judgment entered in favor of CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”), in his action brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (“FELA”) ¹ after the train on which he was working was involved in a collision. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred by excluding evidence of CSX's failure to provide him with certain safety tools with which to perform his work and by allowing CSX to impeach him with a redacted accident report. We agree and reverse.

On the evening of March 17, 2008, Robinson was the lead conductor on a work train performing a shoving movement of sixteen train cars through a public railroad crossing.² Before the train reached the crossing, Robinson noticed that a tractor-trailer was not stopping ahead of the activated warning signals at the crossing. Robinson used his flashlight to try to alert the tractor-trailer to stop, but was unsuccessful. The tractor-trailer collided with the train, causing injury to Robinson.

Robinson brought suit against CSX under FELA,³ alleging CSX breached its duty to provide a safe workplace. In his complaint, Robinson alleged CSX did not supply sufficient safety tools with which to perform the shoving movement, specifically citing CSX's failure to make available either a backup hose or a shoving platform on the day of the accident.⁴ Prior to trial, however, the lower court granted CSX's motion in limine seeking to preclude Robinson from introducing evidence regarding such equipment.

At trial, Robinson proffered that CSX failed to provide him with a backup hose on the day of the accident although he requested one that day. Other CSX employees proffered that backup hoses and shoving platforms were regularly used in performing shoving movements. Despite the proffers, the trial court excluded the evidence regarding the safety equipment because none of Robinson's witnesses proffered that either tool was routinely used and available for use at that railroad yard on the day of the accident.

Later during the trial, CSX introduced an accident report Robinson completed two days after the accident. To the question of whom Robinson believed was at fault for the accident, he wrote, “Truck driver.” The report also asked whether Robinson had a safe workplace, which he answered by checking a box marked, “no,” and writing, “shoving platform.” Pursuant to its order granting CSX's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the alternative safety equipment, the trial court ordered redaction of the words “shoving platform” from that portion of the report.

While cross-examining Robinson, CSX used the redacted accident report as impeachment. Specifically, CSX noted that Robinson faulted only the driver of the tractor-trailer on the accident report. Robinson's counsel moved to admit the redacted portion of the accident report to rehabilitate Robinson, but the trial court denied that motion. During its closing argument, defense counsel suggested that Robinson waited until filing the lawsuit to place any blame on CSX. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of CSX.

This Court reviews the trial court's admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. See Health First, Inc. v. Cataldo, 92 So.3d 859, 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). However, the jury's right to pass upon the question of an employer's liability in a FELA action “must be most liberally viewed.” Johannessen v. Gulf Trading & Transp. Co., 633 F.2d 653, 656 (2d Cir.1980); Eggert v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 538 F.2d 509, 511 (2d Cir.1976) (noting that role of jury is significantly greater in FELA cases than in common law negligence actions because Congress intended the Act to be remedial in nature); see also Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957) (explaining that FELA claims are to be submitted to jury when “the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought. It does not matter that ... the jury may also ... attribute the result to other causes ....” (footnote omitted)).

We hold the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence regarding CSX's failure to provide a backup hose or shoving platform. Evidence concerning the backup hose and shoving platform was relevant to whether CSX exercised reasonable care for Robinson's safety. See Cook v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 6:06–CV–1193, 2008 WL 2275544, at *2 (M.D.Fla. June 2, 2008) (denying railroad's motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of safer alternative methods for performing work and noting that “[t]he standard for relevance ... sets a very low bar ....”); see also Gorman v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc., No. 2:07–CV–12911, 2009 WL 2448604, at *6 (E.D.Mich. Aug.10, 2009) (noting that “whether any given arrangement is reasonably safe cannot be determined ... without any consideration of possible alternative arrangements. Instead, whether the conditions of a workplace are reasonably safe depends on a comparison of the marginal benefits and costs of an available safer alternative.”); Edsall v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 1:06–CV–389, 2007 WL 4608788, at *4 (N.D.Ind. Dec.28, 2007) (“[T]he issue of what is reasonably safe cannot be viewed in a factual vacuum.... [E]vidence of alternative methods can be helpful in determining whether a reasonable and prudent railroad would have required use of the...