Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1–12–1901.,1–12–1901.
• Citation: 29 N.E.3d 1097
• Parties: Anthony WILLIAMS, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, f/k/a Burlington Northern Railway Company, f/k/a The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, d/b/a The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, Defendant–Appellant and Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant (Quality Terminal Services, LLC, Third–Party Defendant–Appellee).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

29 N.E.3d 1097

Anthony WILLIAMS, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, f/k/a Burlington Northern Railway Company, f/k/a The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, d/b/a The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, Defendant–Appellant and Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant (Quality Terminal Services, LLC, Third–Party Defendant–Appellee).

No. 1–12–1901.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

March 18, 2015.

Daley Mohan Groble PC, of Chicago (Raymond H. Groble III, Sean M. Sullivan, and Jeffrey J. Scolaro, of counsel), for appellant.

Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith & Montgomery, LLC, of Chicago (James D. Montgomery, Jr., and John K. Kennedy, of counsel), for appellee Anthony Williams.

Fletcher & Sippel LLC, of Chicago (James A. Fletcher and Peter C. McLeod, of counsel), for appellee Quality Terminal Services, LLC.

OPINION

Justice MASON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff-appellee Anthony Williams filed suit against defendant-appellant BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) pursuant to the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) (45 U.S.C. § 51 ) (2006), for an employment-related injury. BNSF filed a third-party complaint for contribution and contractual indemnification against third-party defendant-appellee Quality Terminal Services (QTS). The jury returned a verdict in favor of Williams and awarded total damages in the amount of $2,676,960. The jury assessed 50% of the negligence involved in the injury to Williams, 37.5% to BNSF and 12.5% to QTS. The jury also returned a verdict in favor of QTS on BNSF's contractual indemnity claim.

¶ 2 On September 25, 2013, this court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that because the only issue remaining after the trial court's oral ruling denying BNSF's posttrial motion was a tax setoff issue that did not toll the time for filing an appeal, BNSF's appeal was not timely filed. Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 121901, ¶ 20, 376 Ill.Dec. 1, 998 N.E.2d 543. The supreme court reversed and remanded, holding that the judgment was not final until the trial court issued its ruling on the setoff issue, because the trial court's prior oral ruling was not entered in the law record book until that date.

Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2015 IL 117444, ¶ 45, 389 Ill.Dec. 1, 25 N.E.3d 646. Thus, we now address the merits of BNSF's appeal.

¶ 3 On appeal, BNSF contends that the circuit court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict on the contractual indemnity claim where the evidence established that BNSF gave reasonable notice to QTS. BNSF further contends that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow evidence related to Williams' termination of employment with BNSF. Finally, BNSF contends that the circuit court erred in allowing evidence of the loss of household services, including unsupported opinion testimony regarding the value of those services. We are not persuaded by BNSF's arguments and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On August 21, 2003, Williams was working as a crane operator for BNSF and sustained an injury to his back for which he obtained immediate medical attention. The incident occurred at an intermodal rail facility located in Cicero, Illinois, that is owned and operated by BNSF. Williams' employment with BNSF was scheduled to be terminated at the end of his shift, an event that was related to prior disciplinary violations.

¶ 6 The BNSF Cicero yard is a hub for shipping and receiving freight in containers that are placed on and removed from railcar chassis or delivery trucks by the use of a crane operated by an employee, the crane operator, assisted from the ground by another employee, the crane director. The crane operators and directors are BNSF employees but at the time of the incident, the loading and unloading operations at the facility were managed and supervised by QTS pursuant to an “Intermodal Facilities Services Agreement” (Agreement) between QTS and BNSF. The Agreement contained an indemnification clause that required BNSF to give reasonable notice to QTS of any claim that could trigger the indemnification provision.

¶ 7 Following the incident, BNSF initiated an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Williams' injury. In December 2003, BNSF received written notice of an attorney's lien from a law firm retained by Williams to pursue a personal injury claim. BNSF received a second notice of an attorney's lien from a different law firm in March 2005.

¶ 8 Williams filed his complaint against BNSF on August 20, 2006. One of the acts of negligence alleged in the complaint was BNSF's failure to provide Williams with “sufficient manpower” to perform his duties on the date of the accident.

¶ 9 Williams was deposed in May 2007. Williams testified that on the night he was injured he was working alone and that Frank Stephenson, the QTS supervisor on duty, directed him to do so. Pursuant to the Agreement, BNSF submitted a written demand for indemnity to QTS in August 2007, predicated on information BNSF claimed it first learned from Williams' deposition testimony. QTS rejected the demand and BNSF filed a third-party complaint against QTS for contribution and indemnity on August 26, 2008. In response to BNSF's claim for indemnification, QTS raised the affirmative defense that BNSF had not submitted its written demand for indemnification within a “reasonable time” as required under the Agreement.

¶ 10 Prior to trial, Williams filed a motion in limine to bar evidence of his termination by BNSF on the grounds that it was not relevant to the issues in the case. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court stated that it did not want a “trial within a trial” where the jurors would concern themselves with whether or not Williams was properly terminated, a proposition with which counsel for BNSF agreed. Counsel for BNSF argued, however, that the termination was relevant to an argument that Williams had a motive to fabricate his injury. During the trial, the trial court again ruled against the admission of the evidence, particularly because there was no evidence to suggest that Williams knew he was going to be terminated that day, thus undermining any motive BNSF could ascribe to him.

¶ 11 Also prior to trial, the trial court denied QTS' motion for summary judgment on the timeliness of BNSF's demand for indemnification under the Agreement. The court found that there existed genuine issues of material fact regarding when BNSF knew or should have known that the negligence of a QTS employee caused, in whole or in part, Williams' injury and that whether BNSF submitted its demand for indemnification within a “reasonable time” presented an issue for the jury.

¶ 12 The trial of the case spanned nine days. More than a dozen witnesses testified. Of the 46 assignments of error raised in BNSF's posttrial motion, BNSF has elected to pursue only 3 of those on appeal. We summarize only so much of the evidence as is necessary to a discussion of these issues.

¶ 13 At trial, Williams testified that he was employed by BNSF at the time of the injury and was working at the Cicero yard as a crane operator. He had previously worked as a crane director. Williams explained that a crane director needs to be in a position on the ground that allows the director to see areas that the crane operator cannot see from inside the cab of the crane. The director lets the operator know whether it is safe to move the crane and if there are any obstacles. A crane director and a crane operator work as a team, with the operator using the crane to lift the trailer or container and the director providing direction. It was BNSF's policy that any time a crane is in operation, a director must be on the ground providing verbal directions and hand signals to the operator.

¶ 14 Williams explained that the team is taken out to the track by the ramp supervisor. Ramp supervisors are QTS employees. The crane operator-director team performs what are referred to as “flips.” A flip is performed by taking a container off the ground or off a chassis and loading it onto another chassis. A “live flip” occurs when a truck driver is in the yard waiting while the team removes the container from the truck, while an “in-house flip” involves a container that is already in the yard and needs to be moved to another chassis. For in-house flips, the crane director unlocks the container from the chassis it is currently on and sets up the other chassis to receive it. The crane director then indicates to the crane operator that it is safe to move the container and also indicates whether or not it needs to be adjusted in any way once it is placed on the chassis. After the container is seated flush on the correct chassis, it is locked in place by the crane director. Each chassis has front and rear locks and the lock may be a twist lock or a push/pull pin with a handle.

¶ 15 Williams explained that the tool most often used by a crane director to lock the container in place is a five-iron. The five-iron is an L-shaped bar with a longer side that is approximately three feet and a shorter side that is approximately six inches. In order to lock the container in place using a push/pull pin type of lock, the pin needs to be pulled out before the container is loaded, and then pushed back through a bolster and into the casting at the base of the container once it is in place on the chassis. The locks are frequently rusty and the five-iron is used to either loosen the safety latch when unlocking or to force the pin through the bolster when locking. Williams stated that at least one pin on each chassis usually had to be locked by striking the five-iron on the pin to get it to fully insert into the casting.

¶ 16 Williams worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on August 20–21, 2003, and Stephenson was his supervisor. Williams and Bonnie Deamon, a crane director, were assigned to work together and Stephenson drove them out to the location...