I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 0 2 0 6 - S CT CANADI

AN NATIONAL/

I LL I NOI SCENTRAL RA I L RO AD COM

P AN Y, A C OR P ORAT

ION
v. J AM ES W ESLEY H

ALL D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 22/ 2004 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L . KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : C H A R L E S H E N R Y R U S S E L L , III CH AR LES T . OZI ER ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: RO BERT M . FREY CH RI S T OP HE R A L L E N KE I T H NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 12/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T his is a cl ai m b rough tb y an i njur ed r ai l r oad empl oyee pur s uantt o the Feder al E m pl oyer ’ s L i abi l i ty A ct(“ FE L A ”) , 45 U . S. C . § 51 ( 1939) . A H i nds C ounty j ury f ound t he
r ai l r oad l i abl e f

ordam ages i n t he amountof $1, 501, 907. 97, and the r ai l r oad t i m el y per f ect ed
a n a p p e a l. B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2 . O n A ugus t2, 2000, J a mes W e s l e y Hal l w a s w orki ng f orhi s e mpl oy e r , C anadi an N at i onal / I l l i noi s C entr al R ai l r oad C om pany ( “I l l i noi s C entr al ”) , as partof a f our - m an r ai l r oad s w i t chi ng cr ew , s or t i ng outr ai l road c ar s as they arr i ved i n the J acks on Y ar d ( “the

### 2

Y a rd ” ). H a ll h a d b e e n d o in g this job fo r 3 9 y e a rs. A lth o u g h Ill in o is C e n tra l ha d sa fe ty ru le T - 740 i n ef

f ect , w hi ch s t at ed thatempl oyees m ustnotm ountm ovi ng l ocomot i ves exce pt
w h e n n ec essa ry, H all an d h is co -w o rke rs t esti fi ed that so rt ing the c ars req u ir ed them to
m ount( thati s , s t ep orj um p ont o) m ovi ng equi pm entre gul ar l y. O n t hi s day, the Y ar d w as m uddy as a r es ul tof

pe r i odi c r ai n. H al l t es t i f i ed thatthi s m ud w as gr eas y and s l i ppery due t o i t s m i xtur e w i th r ot t i ng f eed a nd oi l w hi ch r egul ar l y l eake d f r om the pas s i ng tr ai ns . T he
s l i ppery m ud w as nei thercover ed w i th bal l as t , n or did t he Il l i noi s C entr al pr ovi de any f aci l i t i es f

ort he empl oyees t o w as h the mi xtur e of f thei rboot s . H al l te s t i f i ed thathe and otherempl oyees compl ai ned aboutthe s l i ppery condi t i ons of the Y ar d, butI l l i noi s C entr al di d nothi ng t o al l evi at e the condi t i on. ¶3. I n addi t i on t o rul e T - 740, I l l i noi s C entr al had a gener al saf et y rul e i n eff

ectw hi ch di r ect ed empl oyees t o us e thei rdi s cr et i on i n de t erm i ni ng w hetherornotan ac t i vi ty w as s af e. T h e ru le f

u rth e r in stru c ted e m p lo y e e s to tak e th e tim e to w o rk sa fe ly o n th e jo b . Ill in o is C entr al i s s ued H al l and othercr ew m ember s handhel d r adi o devi ces , w hi ch coul d be us ed t o cont acton e a no the rorno t i f y a n e ng i ne e rtha ta c r e w membe rw a s go i ng t o moun tt he
m ovi ng l ocomot i ve, butthi s w as notr equi r ed. A l though ther e w as s om e t es t i m ony thatot her
e m p lo y e e s u se d th e ra d io d e v ic e s to sto p o r slo w a lo c o m o tiv e in o rd e r to g e t o n , itis undi s put ed thaton thi s occa s i on H al l di d notr adi o t he engi neert o s t op ors l ow the lo c o m o tiv e s o th a t h e c o u ld s te p a b o a rd .Ill ino is C entral an d th e diss ent de scribeHall’ s in jur y a s “a bro ke n le g. ” H allpo int s o ut t hat 1 his inj ury wa s m uc h moreseriou s th anindicated byIllin ois Central and

thedis sent. H allstates that “b oth bo ne s in theuppe r part o f [ his ] l egwe re ‘ cru sh ed ;’ [h e] w as ho sp italiz ed f or sev entee n d ay s, durin g whic h time they ‘stret ch ed ’ his lego ut an d op erated o n it, tw ice , in stallingtw o p ins thefirst time an d c uttingbo nethesec on d tim e. ” H all was un ab le t o w ork an d th at a

ye ar l ate r heha d to un de rgoa th ird

surgery. Hall’ s do cto rs haveopin ed that hewi ll e ve ntu ally h av e to un de rgoa f ourth surgery to r eplace his knee. 

### 3 ¶4. A l tho ug h H al l had successf ull y m ou nted a m ov i ng l oco m oti ve tho usand s of t i m es a yeardur i ng hi s 39- yearcar eer , on thi s occas i on hi s footsl i pped of f the movi ng l ocomot i ve, causi ng him t o fal l and sust ai n seri ou s l eg inj uri es. 1 ¶ 5 . H a ll filed su it p u rsu a n t to F E L A , c laim in g th a t Illino is C e n tra l fa iled to p ro v id e h im
w i th a r eas onabl y s af

e w or k envi r onm ent . A tthe cl os e of tr i al , the j ury r eturned a ve r di ct in fav o r of H all in the am o u n t of $ 1 , 5 0 1 , 9 0 7 . 9 7 , w ith n o red u cti o n for c o n tr ibu tory
n e g lig e n c e o n the p a rt o f H a ll. A fte r b e in g d e n ied relie f th ro u g h p o st-tria l m o tio n s, Illin o is C entr al appea l ed. A N A L Y S IS ¶6. I l l i noi s C entr al r ai s es s even i s s ues on appea l , w hi ch w e have cons ol i dat ed i nt o f i ve. B e c a u se Illino is C e n tra l se e k s re v e rsa l o f a jur y v e rd ict, w e m u st re v iew a ll fac tu a l issu e s in th e li g h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to a n d s u p p o rt iv e o f t h e v e rd ic t. See He n so n v. R o b e rts , 679 So. 2d 1041, 1045 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng W el l s Far go A r m or ed Ser v. Cor

p. , 543 So. 2d 15 4, 157 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ).Thef our alle gatio ns re ferre d to byIl lin oisC entral d uringit s m oti on

f or a direct ed

ve rdi ct 2 we re e ach of theall eg ati on s m ad e in H all ’s inter rog ato ry an sw ers . In his interro gator y ans we rs, Hall alleged that Ill inois Centra l violat ed the FE LA by : (1) re quiring employees to mount moving rai lro ad en gin es; (2) req

uiringem plo ye es to m ount mo ving railroa d e quipment in ba d w eat

he r conditions; (3) negli gently all owing debris, oil , and other chemical subst ances to acc umulate in the walkways; and (4) fail ing to proper ly maintain, inspect , and repairthe locomotive engine. 

### 4 I . P OS T- TR I AL M OTI ONS ¶7. T he f

i r s ti s s ue i s w hetherthe tr i al c our terr ed i n denyi ng I l l i noi s C entr al ’ s pos t - tr i al
m o tio n s. A t th e c lo se o f H a ll’s c a se -in -c h ief , Ill in o is C e n tra l m o v e d fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict,
ar gui ng thatH al l f

ai l ed t o pr ove hi s pr i m a f aci e ca s e of

l i abi l i ty underFE L A . T he mot i on w a s d e n ied b y th e tria l c o u rt. F o llo w in g th e e n try o f ju d g m e n t u p o n th e ju ry v e rd ict, Illino is C entr al f i l l ed a m ot i on f

ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , ori n the al t ernat i ve f or a n e w trial o r re m itt itu r. T h is m o tio n w a s a lso d e n ied b y th e trial c o u rt. O n a p p e a l, Il lin o is C e n tra l ar g u e s th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g its p o st-tria l m o tio n s, w h ich w e sh a ll
s e p a r a t e l y r e v i e w. A. ¶8 . A tt he cl os e of

H al l ’ s cas e - i n- c hi e f

, I l l i no i s Centr a l move d f ora di r e c t e d ve r di ct
ar gui ng thatH al l f

ai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof unde r FE L A . I l l i noi s Cent r al ar gued that H al l ’s foural l egat i ons of negl i gence agai ns tI l l i noi s C entr al w er e nots uppor t ed by the

2
e v id e n c e . T h e trial c o u rt g ra n ted th e d ire c te d v e rd ict o n H a ll’s c laim o f in a d e q u a te l oco m oti ve m ai ntenance an d inspect i on , bu tden i ed the m oti on as t o the ot her cl ai m s. ¶9. M ot i ons f

ora di r ect ed ver di cta r e pr ovi ded by the rul es of ci vi l pr ocedur e t o al l ow one p a rt y to c h a lle n g e th e le g a l su ff ic ie n c y o f th e o th e r p a rt y ’s c a s e . M is s . R . C iv . P . 5 0 (a ). A

### 5

m ot i on fora di r ect ed ver di cti s consi der ed by t he cour tbef or e the ver di cti s r ender ed orf i nal ju d g m e n t is e n te re d . W hite v. Ste wm an , 9 3 2 S o . 2 d 2 7 , 3 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). T h is C o u rt c o n d u c ts a d e n o v o re v iew o f a trial c o u rt’s g ra n t o r d e n ial o f a m o tio n fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict. Ente r gy Mis s . I

nc . v. Bolden , 854 So. 2d 1051, 1055 ( M i s s . 2003) . B eca us e the evi dence
m us tbe cons i der ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the non- m ovant , H al l i s ent i t l ed t o t he benef i tof al l f avor abl e i nf

er ence s t hat may be r eas onabl y dr aw n f r om the evi dence p re s e n te d . I

d. I f ther e i s “s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n s uppor tof the ver di ct , thati s , e vi dence of
s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthatr easonab l e an d fa i rm i nded j ur or s i n the exe r ci s e of i m par t i al j udgm entm i ghthave r eache d di f f er entconcl us i ons , af

f i r m ance i s r equi r ed. ” Cm t y. Bank
v. Court ney , 884 So. 2d 767, 772 ( M i s s . 2004) . T her ef or e, i n or dert o det erm i ne w hethert he
m ot i on f ora di r ect ed ver di ctw as pr oper l y deni ed, w e mustaddr es s w hetherH al l puton su ffic ien t ev id e n c e d u rin g h is c a se -in -c h ief to c re a te a q u e stio n o f fa c t w ith w h ich re a so n a b le ju ro rs c o u ld d is a g re e . ¶1 0 . H a ll b ro u g h t h is c laim a g ains t Il li n o is C en tr al un d er F E L A . F E L A p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt th a t: every comm on car ri erby r ai l r oad w hi l e enga gi ng i n [ i nt er s t at e] comm er ce .

. . sh a ll b e liab le f

o r d a m a g e s to a n y p e rso n su ffe ri n g in ju ry w h ile h e is em p loy ed b y su ch ca rri er in su ch c o m m erc e . . . res u lt ing in w h o le or in p art f r om the negl i gence of

any of the of f i cer s , agent s , oremp l oy ees of s uch c a rrie r, o r b y re a so n o f a n y d e fe c t o r in su ffic ien c y , d u e to its n e g lig e n c e , in its car s , engi nes , a ppl i ance s , machi nery, tr ack, r oadbed, w or ks , boa t s , w harves or o th e r e q u ip m e n t. 4 5 U .S .C . § 5 1 . T h e U n ite d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r t h e F if th C ir c u it h a s s ta te d th a t “ [t]o pr evai l underthe A ct , a pl ai nt i f f m us tpr ove that( 1) the def endanti s a comm on carr i erby

### 6

r ai l r oad enga ged i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce; ( 2) he w as e m pl oyed by the def endantw i th dut i es advanc i ng such com m er ce; ( 3) hi s i nj ur i es w er e s us t ai ned w hi l e he w as s o empl oyed; and ( 4) hi s i nj ur i es r es ul t ed f r om the def

endant ’ s negl i gence . ” Sm ith v . Me d . & S u rg ica l Clin ic A ss’n , 1 1 8 F . 3 d 4 1 6 , 4 1 9 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). ¶1 1 . A t iss u e in th is c a se is w h e th e r H a ll’s in ju rie s resu lt ed from Il li n o is C en tr al’s negl i gence or , m or e s peci f i cal l y, w hetherH al l pr oved thatI l l i noi s C entr al ’ s negl i gence w as th e c a u s e o f h is in

ju ri e s . ¶12. I l l i noi s C entr al ar gues thati n or dert o r ecover un der F E L A , H al l m ustpr ove the tr adi t i onal comm on l aw el ement s of a negl i gence caus e of

act i on, i . e. duty, br eac h, caus at i on and dam ages. Il l i n o is C en tr al f urther ar gu es that i t s duty t o H al l un der FE L A w as “t o u se rea so n ab le ca re a n d p rud en ce so that the w o rk p lace an d the a p p li an ce s fu rn ish ed are r eas onabl y s ui t abl e and s af e f orthe purpos e and i n the ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch they ar e t o be
us ed. ” ¶1 3 . T h e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rth as estab li sh ed that F E L A su p p lants an em p loy er’s
comm on l aw dut y w i th a “f arm or e dr as t i c duty of payi ng damages f

ori nj ury ordeath at
w or k due i n w hol e ori n pa r tt o the empl oyer ’ s negl i gence . ” Rog e rs v . Mis s o u r iPa c . R. R. Co. , 352 U . S. 500, 507–08; 77 S. C t . 443, 449; 1 L . E d. 2d 493, 500 ( 195 7). U ndert he st atute, the plai nti ff’s burden of proving cau sat i on i s s igni f i cant l y r elaxed compar ed t o t he b u rd e n in a n o rd in a ry n e g lig e n c e a c tio n . Co n s o lida tedR a il Co rp . v. G o ttsh a ll , 51 2 U. S. 532, 54 3; 114 S . C t . 2396, 2404; 129 L . E d. 2d 427 ( 1994) . T he ques t i on i s “w hetherHall f ail ed to put o n anyev idenc e w ithreg ard to his claim

that Il lin ois Ce ntral f

ail ed to 3 maintain the locomotive, there fore, the tri al court gr anted a dir ected verdi ct as to this clai m. 

### 7 n e g lig e n c e o f th e e m p lo y e r p lay e d a n y p a rt, h o w e v e r sm a ll, in th e in ju ry o r d e a th w h ich is the s ubj ectof

the s ui t . ” R og ers , 3 5 2 U .S . a t 5 0 8 . ¶14. I n thi s cas e, the j ury cons i der ed H al l ’ s cl ai m thatI l l i noi s C entr al f ai l ed t o pr ovi de a
re a so n a b ly sa fe w o rk e n v iro n m e n t b y (1 ) a llo w in g e m p lo y e e s to m o u n t m o v in g e q u ip m e n t; ( 2) al l ow i ng H al l t o m ountm ovi ng equi pm entw hen i thad bee n r ai ni ng; and ( 3) al l ow i ng t he Y ar d t o acc um ul at e mud and oi l on i t s w al kw ays. I n s uppor tof i t s m ot i on f

ora di r ect ed 3
ver di ct , I l l i noi s C entr al ar gued thatH al l f ai l ed t o prove his w or k envi r onm entw as not re a so n a b ly sa fe , as re q u ire d u n d e r F E L A . H o w e v e r, g iv in g H a ll th e b e n e fit o f a ll fav o ra b le i nfer ences t hatm ay be r eas onabl y dr aw n f r om the evi dence , and cons i der i ng the r el axed b u rd e n o f p ro v in g c a u sa tio n , w e fin d th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g Illino is C e n tra l’s m o tio n fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict. ¶15. H al l ’ s evi dence s uf f i ci ent l y cr eat ed a ques t i on of f act as t o w hether I l l i noi s C entr al fa iled to p ro v id e a re a so n a b ly sa fe w o rk e n v iro n m e n t. H a ll t e stifie d th a t o n th e d a y o f h is injury , h e w as ac ti n g in a cc o rda n ce w ith h is training an d in co m p li an ce w ith Il li n o is C en tr al’s
s af ety rul es , w hi ch r equi r ed hi m t o m ountm ovi ng l ocomot i ves . Fur therm or e, W i l l i am

“ B u b b a ” K e a rn , (“K e a rn ” ) H a ll’s c o -w o rk e r, tes tified th a t itw a s p a rt o f h is jo b a t Illi n o is C entr al t o m ountm ovi ng l oco m oti ves . A s t o H al l ’ s f i r s tcl ai m of

negl i gence , conce r ni ng Illino is C e n tra l’s p ra c tice o f a llo w in g e m p lo y e e s to m o u n t m o v in g e q u ip m e n t, H a ll’s e x p e rt, D enni s B er qui s t( “B er qui s t ”) , t est i fi ed thatI l l i noi s C entr al w as negl i genti n m ai nt ai ni ng

### 8

saf et y rul es w hich al l ow ed it s em ployees t o m ou nt and dis m ou n t m ov i ng l oco m oti ves. B er qui s tf

ur thert es t i f

i ed thata maj or i ty of t he m aj or r ai l r oads had ena ct ed s af ety rul es p roh ibit ing the m o u n ti n g an d d ism o u n ti n g o f m o v in g loco m o ti v es d u e to th e d an g ers in v o lv e d a n d th e h ig h n u m b e r o f a c c id e n ts o c c u rr in g d u ri n g s u c h a c tiv ity . ¶16. H al l t es t i f

i ed i n supp ort of hi s s econd cl ai m that he w as r equi r ed t o m ountm ovi ng l ocomot i ves i n the r ai n, and t hatt he r ai n caus ed a sl i ppery m ud t o f or m i n the Y ar d, w hi ch
acc um ul at ed on the w or ker s ’ boot s . K earn al s o t es t i f i ed t o the s ame. Suf

f i ci entt es t i m ony w as al s o pr es ent ed r egar di ng H al l ’ s thi r d cl ai m . H al l and K earn b oth t est i f i ed as t o t he
s l i ppery condi t i ons w hi ch f or m ed on the w al kw ays i n the Y ar d. Fur thert es t i m ony i ndi cat ed thatcompl ai nt s w er e made t o the R ai l r oad r egar di ng thes e s l i ppery condi t i ons , butnot hi ng w as done t o re m edy t he pot ent i al hazz ar d. A d d it ion all y , p h o tog rap h s o f th e w alkw ay s w ere a ls o a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e . ¶17. T aki ng i nt o consi der at i on t he evi dence pre s ent ed dur i ng H al l ’ s cas e- i n- chi ef , w e f i nd that there w as e n o u g h ev iden ce to cre ate a q u esti o n o f fact w ith reg ard to Il li n o is C en tr al’s
a lleg e d n e g lig e n c e . T h e re fo re , w e fin d th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t e rr in d e n y in g Illino is C e n tra l’s m o tio n fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict. B. ¶1 8 . Il li n o is C en tr al furthe r arg u es th at th e tri al c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g its m o ti o n for a J . N . O . V . , ori n the al t ernat i ve a ne w tr i al . Si m i l art o i t s cl ai m t hati tw as ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed verdi ct , I l l i no i s C entr al ar gu es that the evidence p res ented di d n ot es t abli sh l i abil i ty ag ai nst i t , a nd , the r e f

or e , the j ury v e r di c ts ho ul d b e ov e rturne d. A mot i on f ora J . N . O . V . t e s t s t he

### 9

s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence, w hi l e a mot i on f ora new tr i al t es tthe w ei ghtof the evi dence . B u sh v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 3

– 4 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶19. A l though s i m i l ar t o a m ot i on f or a di r ect ed ver di ct , a m ot i on f or J . N . O . V . al l ow s t he tr i al j udge an oppor tuni ty t o setasi de t he j ury’ s ver di ctand ent era j udgm entas a mat t erof l a w. M i s s . R. Ci v . P . 5 0 ( b ) . Ou rs t a n d a r d f o rr e v i e w o f

a d e n i a l o f

a mo t i o n f

o rJ . N. O. V. i s the s ame as thatf

ormot i ons f

ora di r ect ed ver di ct . T he evi dence i s cons i der ed “i n the l i ght
m os tf avo rabl e to the appe l l ee, gi vi ng the appe l l ee the bene f i tof al l r eas onabl e i nf

er ence s thatm ay r eas onabl y be dr aw n f r om the evi dence . ” Mis s . T r ansp. Com m ’n v. SC

I , I nc. , 717 S o . 2 d 3 3 2 , 3 3 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ). If th e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f th e v e rd ict,
a ff ir m a n c e is re q u ir e d . I

d. ¶20. I l l i noi s C ent r al f ocus es i t s ar gum ent on H al l ’ s admi s s i on dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on th a t h e d id n o t k n o w w h a t ca u se d h is fo o t to slip , an d o n B e rq u ist’s te stim o n y th a t Illi n o is C entr al viol at ed indust ry st and ards by al l ow i ng i t s em ployees t o m ou nt m ov i ng l oco m oti ves. M or e s peci f

i cal l y, I l l i noi s C entr al ar gues thatH al l ’ s admi s s i on w as f at al t o hi s cl ai m s t hat Illino is C e n tra l w a s n e g lig e n t in a llo w in g e m p lo y e e s to m o u n t m o v in g e q u ip m e n t in th e ra in and i n m ai nt ai ni ng s l i ppery and unsa f e w al kw ays . I tf

ur thercl ai m s thatB er qui s t ’ s t es t i m ony w as i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t a bl i s h e i the rtha tI l l i no i s Centr a l vi ol a t e d i nd us try c us t oms a nd
s t andar ds , orthatthe pr act i ce of m ount i ng m ovi ng equi pm entcoul d notbe done i n a r eas onabl y s af

e manner . T her ef

or e, I l l i noi s Cent r al a s ks thi s Courtt o e i therr endera ver di ct in its fa v o r o n a ll o f H a ll’s c laim s, o r re m a n d th e c a se fo r a n e w trial.

### 10

¶ 2 1 . H a ll ad m itt e d d u rin g c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n th a t h e w a s s p e c u la tin g a s to w h e th e r h is b o o ts co n tai n ed the s li p p ery su b stan ce at th e ti m e o f the a cc iden t. T h is ad m issi o n , h o w ev er, i s notf at al t o H al l ’ s cl ai m . Evi dence i n the r ecor d c l ear l y e s t abl i s hed that , on the day of t he
acc i dent , i tha d be en r ai ni ng a nd the m uddy s ubs t ance w as on the ground . T he ev i dence f ur theres t abl i s hed t hat H al l w as w al ki ng i n the Y ar d dur i ng thi s per i od of t i m e, and that ther e w as no f

aci l i ty t o c l ean hi s boot s . T hes e f act s c r eat ed s uf

f i ci entci r cumst ant i al evi dence fo r th e ju ry to fin d th a t H a ll’s b o o ts in d e e d h a d m u d o n th e m a t th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t. ¶22. Fur therm or e, a par ty’ s admi s s i on that he or she do es not know w hether a part i cul ar fa c t is tru e is fa r d iffe re n t fro m a n a d m iss io n th a t th e fa c t is n o t tru e . O u r ru les o f c iv il pr ocedur e empl oy onl y one devi ce w her eby a j ury i s r equi r ed t o acc eptas true orfal s e a part i cul arm att er . T hati s , w her e a pa r ty admi t s a ma t t er i n res po ns e t o a r eques tf or admi s s i ons , thatm att eri s “conc l us i vel y es t abl i s hed, ” and the j udge w i l l i ns tructt he j ur y as s u c h . See M i s s . R ul e C i v. Pr o. 36 ( b) . T hati s notthe ca s e her e. ¶2 3 . F u rth erm o re, th e d issen t f ail s to fu ll y a p p rec iat e the test im o n y o f C h ad B isho p , H all ’s
c o -w o rk er w h o w itn esse d the a cc iden t. T h e d issen t st ates tha t B isho p “testi fi ed h e d idn ’t
re c a ll s e e in g a n y m u d , lim e s to n e , o r o th e r s lip p e ry c o n d itio n o n th e so le s o f H a ll’ s b o o ts .” B ish o p , h o w e v e r, w h e n a sk e d w h e th e r h e h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity to o b s e rv e M r. H a ll’s b o o ts
w h ile h e w a s ly in g o n the g ro u n d , a n sw e re d , “ N o t rea lly . I sa w h is b o o ts b u t I d id n ’t re a lly obs erve them. ”

### 11

¶ 2 4 . T h u s, th e c ritica l q u e stio n is n o t w h e th e r H a ll w a s p e rso n a lly a w a re o f th e m u d o n h is boot s , butr atherw hether , i n vi ew i ng the r ecord as a w hol e, ther e w as s uf f i ci entevi dence p re s e n te d to a llo w a re a s o n a b le ju ro r t o c o n c lu d e th a t I llin o is C e n tr a l w a s n e g lig e n t. ¶25. I n ans w er i ng thi s ques t i on, ou r analys i s i s i dent i cal t o the above anal ys i s r egar di ng the deni al of

the moti on fora di r ect ed ver di ct . I l l i noi s C entr al does notcl ai m thatany ev iden ce o r testi m o n y p rod u ce d d u ri n g it s ca se-in-c h ief cau sed H all ’s claim s to fail . R athe r, Il li n o is C en tr al foc u ses o n the testi m o n y an d ev iden ce p rod u ce d d u ri n g H all ’s ca se-in-c h ief. T h ere fore , fi n d ing itu n n ec essa ry to re -an alyz e the ev iden ce p rese n ted in su p p o rto f H all ’s cl ai m s , w e f

i nd that , a s t o hi s c l ai m of ne gl i gence , H al l pr oduced s uf f i ci entevi dence f

ort he j ury t o cons i der , and the tr i al courtdi d noterri n denyi ng the mot i on. C. ¶26. W i th r egar d t o m ot i ons f ora new tr i al , thi s C our thas hel d: I n contr as tt o j udgm ent s as a mat t erof l aw , the mot i on f

ora new tr i al exi s t s f

or a n en tirely d iffe re n t pu rp o se . A c c o rd in g ly , a n e w tri a l b e c o m e s a p p ro p ria te w hen a tr i al courtdet erm i nes thaterr orw i thi n the tr i al m echanis m i t s el f has c a u se d a leg all y inco rrect or u n just ve rdict t o b e re n d ere d . T h e m o ti o n for a new tr i al af

f or ds the tr i al court s w i th an al t ernat i ve t o a gr antof a JN O V , and p ro v id e s ju d g e s w ith th e o p p o rtu n ity to re m e d y trial e rro r b e fo re a n a p p e a l is comm ence d. W hetherj ury err oror otherw i s e, our l aw has l ong r ecogni zed the im p o rt a n c e o f t h is re m e d ia l d e v ic e . W h ite , 932 So. 2d at33. T r i al c our t s ha ve the author i ty t o s etas i de a j ury ver di ctw hen the
v e rd ic t i s c o n tra ry to th e su b sta n tial w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , b u t if the ju ry v e rd ict is
s u p p o rt e d b y th e su b s ta n tia l w e ig h t o f e v id e n c e , it sh o u ld n o t b e se t a s id e . I d. C as es ar i s i ng u n d er F E L A are to b e left t o the ju ry, an d a jury ’s ve rdict ca n o n ly b e set asid e “ w h en there

### 12

is a c o m p le te a b s e n c e o f p ro b a tiv e fa c ts ” to s u p p o rt it. D e n n is v. D e n v e r& R i o G r a n de W. R . R . Co. , 375 U . S. 208, 210; 84 S. C t . 291; 11 L . E d. 2d 256 ( 1963) . A r gui ng thatthe
ev iden ce p rese n ted a t tr ial do es n o t su p p o rtth e jury ve rdict, Il li n o is C en tr al ask s this C o u rt to re m a n d th is c a s e fo r a n e w tr ia l. ¶27. A gai n, a r epet i t i on of the evi dence pr es ent ed i n s uppor tof H al l ’ s cl ai m s of negl i gence i s unne ces s ary. T he j ury r eturned a ve r di cti n f avorof H al l i n the amountof

$1, 501, 907. 97, and w e c a nn ots a y tha tthi s v e r di c twas a ga i ns tthe o ve rw he l mi ng wei gh to f the evi dence . T h e re fo re , the trial c o u rt w a s c o rre c t in d e n y in g Illino is C e n tra l’s m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. I I . EX P ER T T ES TI M ONY ¶ 2 8 . Illino is C e n tr al ne x t as se rts s e v e ra l as sig n m e n ts o f e rro r a ss o c iate d w ith H a ll’s e x p e rt, B er qui s t , i ncl udi ng B er qui s t ’ s qual i f i cat i ons t o t es t i f

y as an expe r t , m at er i al r ef er ence d i n t he
ex p ert’s t esti m o n y that w as n o t pro d u ce d in d isc o v e ry, an d the re leva n ce o f th e e x p ert’s t es t i m ony and opi ni on. W e exa m i ne ea ch of thes e i n turn. A. ¶29. W hen r evi ew i ng a tr i al c our t ’ s de ci s i on t o a l l ow or di sal l ow evidence, i ncl udi ng e x p e rt te s tim o n y , w e a p p ly a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . W e b b v. B ra sw e ll , 930 So. 2d 387, 396–97 ( M i s s . 2006) . Fur therm ore, a tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow expertt es t i m ony w ill b e re v e rs e d o n ly u p o n a s h o w in g o f p re ju d ic e to Il lin o is C e n tr a l. J o n e s v . S ta te , 918 So. 2 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ).

### 13

¶30. I n 2003, thi s C our t amended R ul e 702 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence , pl aci ng w ith the tri al co u rtthe g atek ee p ing resp o n sibil it ies o f ev alua ti n g the a d m issi b il ity o f ex p ert t est i m on y. R ule 702 n ow st at es: I f s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orothers peci al i zed know l edge w i l l assi stthe tr i erof fact to u nd ers t and the ev i den ce or t o d et erm i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as a n e xpertby know l edge, s ki l l , exper i ence , tr ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m a y tes tify th e re to in th e fo rm o f a n o p in io n o r o th e rw ise , if ( 1 ) th e ir t es t i m ony i s based u po n s uf f i ci entf act s ordat a, ( 2) the t es t i m ony i s the pr oductof

r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and m ethods , and (3) t he w i tnes s has appl i ed the pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o the f act s of the ca s e. ¶31. Si nce t he amendm ent , w e have st at ed that “[ w ] e ar e conf i dent t hat our l earned tr i al j udges can a nd w i l l pr oper l y as s um e the r ol e as gat ekee peron ques t i ons of admi s s i bi l i ty of expertt es t i m ony. ” Miss. T ran s. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31, 4 0 (M i ss . 2003) ( adopt i ng the D au bert

tes t co n c e rn in g e x p e rt te stim o n y ). T h e tw o -p ro n g te st a p p lied b y th is C o u rt e x a m in e s b o th th e re le v a n c e a n d th e re lia b ility o f e x p e rt te s tim o n y . Jones , 918 So. 2 d a t 1 2 2 7 . ¶3 2 . In th is case , the re co rd re fle c ts th a t d u rin g p re-tr ial m o ti o n s, the tri al j u d g e h ea rd
a rg u m e n ts fro m b o th Illino is C e n tra l a n d H a ll reg a rd in g B e rq u ist’s q u a lifica tio n s u n d e r R u le 702. A f t erhear i ng ar gum ent s fr om bot h si des , Il l i noi s C entr al i nf or m ed the tr i al j udge that i tw oul d voi rdi r e B er qui s ton hi s qua l i f i cat i ons w hen H al l puthi m on the s t and. B as ed on thi s i nf or m at i on, the tr i al j udge r es erved hi s rul i ng on the mot i on i n l i m i ne u n til th a t tim e . ¶33. D ur i ng hi s di r ect exami nat i on, B er qui s t t es t i f i ed that he f

i r s t beca m e i nvol ved i n t he
ra ilro a d in d u stry in 1 9 6 0 , an d w o rk e d a s a c laim a g e n t u n til 1 9 7 3 . P a rt o f h is jo b a s a c laim agentw as t o be f

ami l i arw i th the s af

ety rul es of

the r ai l r oad, beca us e i n i nves t i gat i ng

### 14

a c c id e n ts, a n in v e stig a to r m u st k n o w w h e th e r o r n o t th e re w a s c o m p lian c e w ith th e sa fe ty
rul es . Fol l ow i ng a maj oracc i dent , hi s j ob r equi r ed hi m t o tr ai n and educ at e empl oyees regar ding saf

et y rul es. ¶ 3 4 . B e rq u ist s ta rt e d a ra ilro a d sa fe ty c o n su lti n g b u sin e ss in 1 9 8 2 a n d h a s w o rk e d w ith att orneys , i ns ur ance com pani es , s t at e tr ans por t at i on depart m ent s , and pr i vat e i ndus tr i es on t he t op i c o f

r a i l r oa d s a f

e ty r e gu l a t i on s s i nc e the n. Furthe r mor e , Ber qu i s ti nd i c a t e d tha the had bee n qual i f

i ed as an expe r tt o t es t i f y as t o the appl i cat i on of r ai l r oad s af

ety rul es and
acc i dentpr event i on i n var i ous s t at es thr oughoutthe country. I n addi t i on, B er qui s tt es t i f i ed thathe i s a f

oundi ng m emberof

the N at i onal A s s oci at i on of R ai l r oad Saf

ety C ons ul t ant s and has at t end ed an d g i ven present at i on s atvari ou s educa t i on al sem i nars. ¶ 3 5 . A fte r H a ll o ffe re d B e rq u ist a s a n e x p e rt, Illino is C e n tra l p ro c e e d e d to v o ir d ire h im
as t o hi s qual i f

i cat i ons . A tthe conc l usi on o f t his exami nat i on, I l l i noi s C entr al ar gued that B er qui s tdi d notqua l i f

y a s a n e xpertw i tnes s unde rRul e 702. Speci f i cal l y, I l l i noi s C entr al
ar gu e d tha tBer qu i s t ’ s w ork e xp e r i e nc e a s a c l a i ms i nv e s t i ga t ordi d n oti nv ol ve a ny exper i ence as a conduc t or , br akeman ors w i t chman. Fur therm or e, I l l i no i s Centr a l a r gu e d tha t B er qui s thad es s ent i al l y s el f
- educa t ed hi m s el f

r egar di ng the s af

ety of m ou nt i ng m ovi ng e q u ip m e n t b y re a d in g sa fe ty ru les a n d stu d y in g in fo rm a tio n c o m p iled fro m th e In ter n e t. H al l ’ s c ouns el c l ar i f

i ed thatBer qui s tw as notbe i ng of f er ed t o t es t i f

y as t o the ac t i ons of

the
s w i t chi ng cr ew , butw as i ns t ead bei ng of f er ed t o t es t i f

y as t o the r ai l r oad i ndus try’ s oper at i ng and saf et y rul es and h ow Il l i no i s C entr al fai l ed to com ply w i th those st and ards.

### 15

¶3 6 . T ak ing into c o n side rati o n the d ir ec t t esti m o n y o f B erq u ist , Il li n o is C en tr al’s vo ir d ir e of B er qui s tand i t s m ot i on i n l i m i ne , the tr i al j udge deni ed I l l i noi s C entr al ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne an d all o w ed B erq u istt o t esti fy as t o th e o p era ti o n of safety rules in th e ra il roa d ind u stry . In appl yi ng D au bert

to th e fa c ts o f th is c a se , w e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in a llo w in g B e rq u ist to tes tify a s a n e x p e rt in th e fie ld o f o p e ra tin g a n d sa fe ty rul es. B. ¶37. I l l i noi s C entr al al s o ar gues t hatthe tr i al courtcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby al l ow i ng B er qui s tt o re f

er ence cer t ai n m at er i al notprovi ded i n di s covery. D ur i ng hi s tr i al t es t i m ony, B er qui s tr ef

er ence d a bookl etpubl i s hed by the Feder al Rai l r oad A dm i ni s tr at i on (“FR A ”) cont ai ni ng s t at i s t i cal dat a on ac tual caus es of r ai l r oad ac ci dent s. B er qui s tpr ovi ded an opi ni on of

w hy t he pr act i ce of mount i ng and di s m ount i ng m ovi ng l ocomot i ves w as a b a n d o n e d b y a m a

jo rity o f th e m a

jo r ra ilro a d s. Illin o is C e n tra l arg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t H a ll f ai l ed t o di s cl os e any of t hi s i nf or m at i on dur i ng di s covery, ther eby comm i t t i ng a “bl at ant d is c o v e ry v io la tio n w h ic h a lo n e re q u ir e s re v e rs a l o f t h e ju ry v e rd ic t.” ¶ 3 8 . D u rin g p re -tria l d isc o v e ry , Illino is C e n tra l p ro p o u n d e d a n in ter ro g a to ry a sk in g H a ll t o i dent i f y al l expert s H al l pl anned t o cal l as w i tnes s es attr i al , the s ubj ectm att eron w hi ch
e a c h e x p e rt w o u ld tes tify , the su b sta n c e o f th e fa c ts a n d o p in io n s to w h ich e a c h e x p e rt w o u ld t es t i f y, a nd the s umm a r y of

the g r ou nd s f

ore a c h e xp e r to pi ni on . A l tho ug h H al l di d not id e n tify B e rq u ist in its re sp o n se to th e in ter ro g a to ry , h e late r p ro v id e d Illino is C e n tra l w ith an expe r tr eportauthor ed by B er qui s t . T he r eporti ndi cat ed thatthe pr act i ce of m ount i ng and

### 16

di s m ount i ng m ovi ng equi pm entw as once an acc ept ed pr act i ce, butm or e r ece nt l y, r ai l r oads
w er e i s s ui ng rul es prohi bi t i ng t he pr act i ce. T he r eportf ur therdi s cl os ed B er qui s t ’ s opi ni on thatI l l i noi s C entr al w as negl i genti n fai l i ng t o pr ovi de H al l w i th r eas onabl y s af e and
a d e q u a te r u les fo r th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f h is w o rk . T h e re p o rt d id n o t s p e c ifica lly sta te B e rq u ist’s o p in io n a s to w h y th e m a jo r ra ilro a d s c h a n g e d th e ir sa fe ty ru les w ith re g a rd to
m o u n tin g a n d d ism o u n tin g e q u ip m e n t, no r d id th e re p o rt in d ica te th a t B e rq u ist w o u ld
re fe re n c e a b o o k le t p u b lis h e d b y F R A c o n ta in in g s ta tis tic a l d a ta o f r a ilr o a d a c c id e n ts . ¶3 9. D ur i ng Ber qu i s t ’ s d i r e c te xa mi na t i on, couns el f orH al l as ked B er qui s thow t he
r ai l r oad i ndus tr y r eac t ed t o the s t andar d of a l l ow i ng pe opl e t o m ountand di s m ountm ovi ng equi pm ent . W hen B er qui s tbe gan t o ans w erthatoverthe yea r s a l otof peopl e w er e gett i ng hur t , couns el f

orI l l i noi s Cent r al obj ect ed, s t at i ng “I don’ tthi nk the w i tnes s has s how n he has p erso n al kn o w ledg e o f th is othe r th an the tw o rail roa d s h e w o rke d for. ” A lth o u g h the re co rd
r ef l ect s s ever al ot herobj ect i on s t o thi s l i ne of ques t i oni ng, no obj ect i ons w er e made
r egar di ng an al l eged di s covery vi ol at i on. ¶40 . Fur therm or e, w hen B er qui s tw as as ked dur i ng di r ectexami nat i on w hat document at i on he r evi ew ed thats how ed him w hatw as occurr i ng w hen empl oyees w er e mount i ng and di s m ount i ng m ovi ng equi pm ent , he ans w er ed thathe r evi ew ed a bookl etpubl i s hed by the F R A c o n tain in g s ta tis tic s o n ra ilro a d a c c id e n ts. T h e re c o rd re fle c ts th a t ju st p rio r to B erq u istrefere n cing the F R A m aterial , c o u n sel fo r Il li n o is C en tr al o b jected to th e a n sw ers by Ber qu i s ta s he a r s a y. The a t t orne ys w e r e a s ke d t o a pp r oa c h the be nc h, a tw hi c h t i m e a bench di s cus s i on e ns ued. Pr es um abl y, thi s i s the onl y pos s i bl e t i m e thatI l l i noi s C entr al m ay

### 17

have obj ect ed t o the FR A m at er i al , how ever , ther e i s no s t at ementon the r ecor d r egar di ng w hatobj ect i ons m i ghthave be en made dur i ng thi s bench c onf er ence . O therthan the benc h d is c u s s io n , n o o th e r o b

je c tio n s to th e F R A m a te ri a l w e re m a d e d u ri n g th e tr ia l. ¶41 . In fact , on cross -exam i nati on , the fol l ow i ng exch ang e t oo k p lace b etw een B erqui st
a n d c o u n se l fo r Illin o is C e n tra l re g a rd in g th e F R A m a ter ial: D ef endant ’ s A t t orney: O kay, s i r. N ow y ou als o ref err ed t o an F R A r eportthat w as i s s ued i n 1988 conce rni ng empl oyee i nj ur i es . D o you r eca l l t hat t es t i m ony? B erq u ist : I referred to F R A m aterial s from ‘88 thro u g h ac tually, I d o n ’t thi nk I s ai d “88. I s houl d have s ai d ‘ 98 i f I s ai d ‘ 88. D ef endant ’ s A t t orney: O kay. B e rq u ist: N o w th e re w a s m a ter ial b a c k in th e 8 0 ' s, b u t itw a sn ’t a s w e lld e fin e d a s th e m o re c u rre n t m a ter ial. D ef endant ’ s A t t orney: W el l , does thatr eport- - do you have thatr eportw i th you? B er qui s t : I have the 80' s m at eri al w i th m e. I don’ tthi nk I have that m at er i al thatgoes back i n the ea r l i eryear s than t he ‘ 88 m at er i al s . I can t ake a l ook butI r atherdoubti t . N o, I don’ ts ee thatear l i erm at er i al w i th m e. D ef endant ’ s A t t orney: O kay. So you don’ thave thatm at er i al w i th you her e t oday. B erq u ist : N o , sir . D ef endant ’ s A t t orney: T hat ’ s al l I have, Y ourH onor , T hank Y ou. ¶42. I l l i noi s C entr al f ai l ed t o pr oper l y obj ectt o B erqui st ’s te s t i m ony r egar di ng r eas ons w h y th e m a

jo r ra ilro a d s w e re a m e n d in g th e ir sa fe ty ru les a n d to B e rq u ist’s r e fe re n c e to s t at i s t i cal i nf

or m at i on fr om the FR A bookl et . T hus , w e f i nd thatI l l i noi s C entr al i s now

### 18

pr ocedur al l y barr ed f

r om a r gui ng on appea l thatthe tr i al c our tc om m i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby
a llo w in g th is e v id e n c e to b e a d m itte d . Co tto n v. S ta te , 675 So. 2d 308, 314 ( M i ss. 1996) (f i nd i ng that w hen obj ect i on i s m ade d uri ng ben ch co nfer ence, the co m plai ning party m ust p rese rve th e rec o rd fo r app ea l to av o id be ing pro ce d u rall y b arred ); Flem in gv. S ta te , 604 So. 2d 280, 294 ( M i s s . 1992) ( hol di ng t he abs ence of a t i m el y obj ect i on caus es def endantt o be p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d fr o m a s s e rt in g th e a lle g e d e rr o r o n a p p e a l) . ¶43. Pr ocedur al baras i de, ourrul es of ci vi l pr ocedur e r equi r e thata pa r ty mustdi s cl os e the name of eac h expertexpec t ed t o be c al l ed as a w i tnes s a ttr i al , the s ubj ectm att eron w hi ch
ea ch ex p ert i s ex p ec ted to test if y , th e su b stan ce of th e fac ts an d op inion s to w h ich th e e x p ert i s e xp e c t e d t o t e s t i f

y a nd a s umm a ry o f

the gr ou nd s f

ore a c h o pi ni on . M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 26( b) ( 4) ( A ) ( I ) . W hen a di s covery vi ol at i on occur s , one of the sa nct i ons avai l abl e underour rul es of ci vi l pr ocedur e i s “an or der re f us i ng t o al l ow the di s obedi entparty t o s uppor tor oppos e des i gnat ed cl ai m s ordef ens es , orpr ohi bi t i ng hi m f r om i ntr od uci ng des i gnat ed
m att ers i n ev iden ce . ” M iss. R . C iv. P . 37 (b)(2 )(B ). T h is C o u rtha s st ated th at “[ a]n e x p ert s houl d notbe al l ow ed t o t est i fy c oncerni ng a s ubj ectm att erw hi ch i s noti ncl uded i n the
re s p o n s e to th e in te rr o g a to ry ,” a n d a llo w a n c e o f s u c h w o u ld b e re v e rs ib le e rr o r. B uskirk v. E llio tt , 8 5 6 S o . 2 d 2 5 5 , 2 6 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶44. C om pl i ance w i th the rul e i nvol ves a fa ct - i nt ens i ve com pari son betw een t he s ubj ect
m att ercont ai ned i n di s covery r es pons es and the s ubj ectmat t erof the t es t i m ony gi ven by the
e x p e rt a t tr ia l. I

d . T hi s C our thas found di s covery vi ol at i ons and subs equentexcl us i on of expertt es t i m ony t o be pr operw hen the expert s t es t i f i ed as t o a s ubj ectm att erdi f f er entf r omBe rquist limite d h is disc us sio n reg ardings af ety rules to “ m ajo r railroa ds ,”wh ich hestated 4 did “the majority of th e ra il ro ading in the Unit ed States.” I llinois Cental is cons idered one of the “major railroads .” Berquist furthe r testified that the sm all rai lroads, of which ther e are around 400, typicall y adopt the safety rules of the neare st major railr oad. 

### 19 th e s u b je c t m a tte r c o n ta in e d in d is c o v e ry re s p o n s e s . S e e , e .g ., Co lth a rp v. Ca rn e sa le , 733 S o . 2 d 7 8 0 , 7 8 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ) (tri al co u rtco m m itted re v ersible e rror b y ad m itti n g ex p ert test im o n y sup p o rt ing ad d it ion al th eo ry o f plainti ff’ s injury n o t r ev ea led d u ri n g d isco v ery ); T . K . Stanley I

nc. v. Cas on , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 5 0

– 5 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ) (tria l co u rt e rre d in admi t t i ng expertt es t i m ony r egar di ng perm anentdi s abi l i ty, as i tw as a sepa r at e s ubj ectm att er f r om caus at i on) . H ow ever , thi s C our thas es t abl i s hed that“w her e the st at ed s ubj ectm att er i n the r es pons e nec es s ar i l y i ncl udes the s ubj ectm att ert es t i f i ed t o attr i al , i ti s an abus e of di s cr et i on t o excl ude the expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony. ” B u skirk , 8 5 6 S o . 2 d a t 2 6 4 . ¶45. I n thi s cas e, the al l eged di s covery vi ol at i ons i ncl ude t es t i m ony r egar di ng r eas ons w hy the maj orr ai l r oads w er e amendi ng thei rs af ety rules and B er qui s t ’ s r ef er ence t o s t at i s t i cal i nf or m at i on f

r om t he FR A bookl et . A s s t at ed pr evi ous l y, B er qui s t ’ s expertr eports t at ed that a maj or i ty of

the m aj orr ai l r oads ha d c hanged thei rs af ety rul es r egar di ng the mount i ng and di s m ount i ng of

m ovi ng equi pm enti n r ecenty ears . T her ef or e, thi s C our tf

i nds thatt he
su b jec t m a tter c o n tain e d in B e rq u ist’s e x p e rt re p o rt (th a t m a jo r ra ilro a d s w e re c h a n g in g th e ir
s af ety rul es r egar di ng t he mount i ng and di s m ount i ng of m ovi ng equi pm ent ) i ncl uded the
su b jec t m a tter B e rq u ist te stifie d to a t trial (re a so n s w h y m a jo r ra ilro a d s w e re a m e n d in g th e ir safe ty ru les). 4

### 20

¶46. A ccor di ngl y, the di s covery vi olat i on argum ents m ade by Il l i no i s C entr al do not re q u ire a re v e rsa l o f th e ju ry v e rd ict. C. ¶ 4 7 . Illino is C e n tra l a lso a rg u e s th a t B e rq u ist’s tes tim o n y a n d o p in io n s w e re n o t re lev a n t. H ow ever , w e f

i nd no evi dence i n t he r ecor d ( ei theri n I l l i noi s C entr al ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne , ar gum ent s attr i al orpos t - tr i al m ot i ons ) thatI l l i noi s C entr al obj ect ed t o the r el evanc e of B erq u isttest im o n y . O n ly n o w o n ap p ea l do es Ill ino is C en tra l a rg u e tha t B erq u ist ’s tes tim o n y w a s n o t re lev a n t. T h u s, Illin o is C e n tra l i s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d fro m ra isin g th is
a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. Chantey Music Pu bl ’ g, I nc. v. Malaco, I

nc. , 915 So. 2d 1052, 1060 ( M i s s . 2005) ( h o l d i n g th a tth i s Co u r td o e s “ n o te n t e r t a i n a r g u me n t s ma d e f o rth e f i r s tt i me on appea l as the ca s e mustbe dec i ded on the f act s cont ai ned i n the r ecor d and noton as s ert i ons i n the br i ef

”) . Pr ocedur al baras i de, w e f i nd l i t t l e m eri tto the ar gum entthatt he tes tim o n y w a s n o t re lev a n t. I I I . CONT RI BU TORY NE GLI GENC E ¶48. I l l i noi s C entr al next ar gues that the j ury’ s f ai l ur e t o attr i but e contr i but ory negl i gence t o H al l w as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . I l l i noi s C entr al cont ends t hat the evi dence s how ed thatH al l w as gui l ty of c ontr i but ory ne gl i gence beca us e he: ( 1) f ai l ed to e x e rc ise re a so n a b le c a re u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s b y n o t ch e c k in g th e b o tto m o f h is b o o ts orthe gr ound condi t i on pr i ort o m ount i ng the m ovi ng l ocomot i ve, ( 2) f ai l ed t o r adi o the
e n g in e e r to sto p o r slo w th e lo c o m o tiv e p rio r to th e in c id e n t, an d (3 ) fa iled to c o m p ly w ith Il l i no i s C entr al ’s saf

et y rul es.

### 21

¶4 9. U nderFE L A , t he empl oyee ha s a dut y t o exer ci s e o rdi nar y car e under t he
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . G autr eaux v. Scurlock Mar ine, I nc. , 1 0 7 F . 3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 8 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). I l l i noi s C entr al had the bur den of pr ovi ng thatH al l f

ai l ed t o e xer ci s e or di nary c ar e undert he ci r cumst ance s . W hen r evi ew i ng a cl ai m t hata j ury ver di ctw as contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng we i g h to f

th e e v i d e n c e , we mu s ta c c e p ta s tru e th e e v i d e n c e th a ts u p p o r t s th e v e r d i c t , a n d we w ill r e v e rs e w h e n c o n v in c e d th a t th e c ir c u it c o u rt h a s a b u s e d its d is c re tio n . W a tso n v. S ta te , 7 2 2 S o . 2 d 4 7 5 , 4 8 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶ 5 0 . Illino is C e n tra l’s c o u n se l elicite d tes tim o n y fro m H a ll th a t h e d id n o t ch e c k h is b o o ts pri or t o m ou nti ng the locom oti ve. A l so, K earn t est i fi ed thatw hen he g ot m ud on his bo ots , h e w o u ld sc rap e the b o tt o m o f his b o o ts off on a se al st ep to g et th e e x ce ss m u d o ff. H o w e v e r, b o th H a ll an d K e a rn tes tified th a t w h e n it rain e d , a s lip p e ry m u d w o u ld fo rm in the Y ar d w hi ch w oul d acc um ul at e on the w or ker s ’ boot s , w hi ch coul d onl y be r emoved by
w as hi ng the boot s w i th w at er . H al l al s o t es t i f i ed thathe had be en w al ki ng thr ough the mud al l da y on the day of

hi s a cci dent . A ddi t i onal l y, the j ury w as al l ow ed t o vi ew phot ogr aphs of the muddy w al kw ays . H al l tes t i f i ed that , des pi t e the r ai n, empl oyees di d nots t op and ch ec k their bo o ts be fore m o u n ti n g a m o v ing loco m o ti v e, alth o u g h this co u ld b e a safe p ra c tic e . ¶ 5 1 . Illino is C e n tra l a lso c laim s th a t H a ll w a s n e g lig e n t in fa ili n g to ra d io th e e n g in e e r to i ns truc thi m t o s t op ors l ow t he l oc omot i ve be f or e he a t t e mpt e d t o moun t . I l l i no i s Centr al puton t es t i m ony f

r om C had B i s hop ( “B i s hop”) , H al l ’ s co- w or ker , w ho s t at ed thathe had
us ed hi s r adi o t o s l ow ors t op a l ocomot i ve i n or dert o e m bark. I l l i noi s Cent r al a l s o el i ci t ed

### 22

t es t i m ony f

r om T om E vans ( “Evans” ) , w ho s t at ed thatt he normal pr ocedur e w oul d be f or an empl oyee t o r adi o the engi neerw hen he i s aboutt o m ountthe movi ng l ocomot i ve. ¶52. O n the otherhand, H al l pr oduced e vi dence t o the contr ary. K earn t es t i f i ed thati t w as n o tc u s t o ma r y p r a c t i c e f o re mp l o y e e s t o r a d i o a n e n g i n e e ra n d t e l l t h e m t o s t o p o rs l o w d o wn pr i ort o m ount i ng the l ocomot i ve. A l s o, H al l t es t i f i ed thatdur i ng hi s 39- yearcar eer , he
neverus ed hi s r adi o t o t el l an engi neert o s l ow dow n ors t op beca us e he w as tr ai ned t o cat ch the engi ne. N o evi dence w as pr es ent ed thatr adi oi ng an engi neerpr i ort o m ount i ng t he
m o v in g lo c o m o tiv e w a s re q u ir e d . ¶ 5 3 . Illino is C e n tra l a lso c laim s th a t H a ll w a s n e g lig e n t b e c a u se h e fa iled to c o m p ly w ith I l l i noi s C entr al ’ s s af

ety rul es w hi ch i ns truct ed empl oyees t o us e expe r i ence , i nt el l i gence , comm on s ens e and know l edge of s af ety rul es i n det erm i ni ng w hetheran ac t i vi ty i s s af e. Fur ther , rul e T - 740 s t at ed thate m pl oyees mustnotmount m ovi ng l ocomot i ves exce ptw hen
nece s s ary and mustnotatt empt t o geton orof f equi pm entm ov i ng atan uns af e s peed. I l l i n o i s Ce n tr a l o f

f e r e d th e t e s t i mon y o f

Ha l l ’ s c o - work e r , Bi s h o p , who t e s t i f i e d th a tru l e T740 pl ace d r es tr i ct i ons on empl oyees m ou nt i ng equi pm entm ovi ng atan uns af e s peed. B i s hop f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatempl oyees w er e t o ut i l i ze I l l i noi s C entr al ’ s gener al s af ety rul e, al w ays us i ng comm on s ens e i n the per f or m ance of thei rj ob. H al l t es t i f i ed, how ever , t haton the day of

t he acc i dent , he w as act i ng i n compl i ance w i th I l l i noi s C entr al ’ s s af ety rul es and i n acc or dance w i th hi s exper i ence and tr ai ni ng. ¶ 5 4 . T h e e v id e n c e p ro d u c e d a t t ri a l w a s n o t o v e rw h e lm in g ly in f a v o r o f e ith e r s id e . W e have neve rhel d t hatvi ol at i on of a s af ety rul e cons t i tut es negl i gence perse. Such ques t i onsAltho ugh Il lin ois Ce ntral ref ers to i ts c laim s re gardingHall’ s al leg ed negligen ce a s 5 “c ontrib ut ory n e g l i g e n c e ” c la ims , M is si ss ip pilaw e mpl oy s a“p ur e c omparati ve ne gl ig en ce ” s ys te m. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-15 (Rev. 2004) . Altho ugh th e diss ent f

inds the trial c ourt e rre d in no t grantin g P lainti ff

’s p rop os ed 6 ins tr u c ti o nP -1 0 , this in s tr

u c ti o nis n o t anis s u e o na p p e a l. P rop o s e d

in s tr u c ti o nP -1 0 w a s d en ied by the tri al court. 

### 23 are for the jury . T h u s, w e find the ju ry’s rejec ti o n o f I lli n o is C en tr al’s co n tr ibu tory negl i gence cl ai m w as notcontr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . I V. J URY I NS TR UCT I ONS ¶5 5 . Il li n o is C en tr al n ex t claim s that the tr ial co u rt erred in refu sin g to in stru c t the jury
conce rni ng f

act - s peci f

i c cl ai m s of

contr i but ory negl i gence and i n i ns truct i ng the j ury that 5 they cou l d fi nd forH al l on m ult i ple cl ai m s of negl i gen ce. F oll ow i ng the ev i den t i ary pha se o f th e tria l, Illi n o is C e n tra l re q u e ste d th a t th e c o u rt g ra n t tw o ju ry in stru c tio n s re g a rd in g its cl ai m s of H al l ’ s al l eged contr i but ory negl i gence . T he t w o j ury i ns truct i ons w er e D - 8A and D -13 . P rop o sed instruc ti o n D -8A w o u ld h av e, i n a v ery d etail ed an d fac t- sp ec if ic m an n er, i n s tru c t e d th e j u r y th a tHa l l h a d a d u ty t o e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e c a r e . P r o p o s e d i n s tru c t i o n D1 3 w o u ld h a v e in stru c ted th e ju ry to c o n sid e r a v io latio n o f c o m p a n y s a fe ty ru les in det erm i ni ng w hetherornotH al l w as ne gl i gent . Pr opos ed i ns truct i on D - 8A w as m odi f i ed by th e c o u rt a n d p re s e n te d to th e ju ry , w h ile p ro p o s e d in s tru c tio n D -1 3 w a s re je c te d . ¶56. Fur ther , H al l pr opos ed j ury i ns truct i on P - 1, w hi ch i ns truct ed the j ury t o f i nd i n f avor 6 of H al l i f t he j ury f

ound thatI l l i noi s C entr al f ai l ed t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e ca r e i n pr ovi di ngThe court struck the word “unsafe” as us ed by Hall in the proposed instruction P-1 and 7 su bs tit ute d th e w ord

“n ot reas on ab ly s af

e. ” 

### 24 a r eas onabl y s af

e pl ace f orH al l t o w or k, as r equi r ed by FE L A . H al l ’ s pr opos ed i ns truct i on P -1 w a s s lig h tly m o d if

ie d a n d g iv e n to th e ju ry . 7 A. ¶57 . W e h av e e stab li sh ed the fo ll o w ing stan d ard o f rev iew f or chal l en g es to jury i nst ruct i on s: T he C our tdoes nots i ngl e outany i ns truct i on ort ake i ns truct i ons outof c o n te x t; r a th e r, t h e in s tru c tio n s a re to b e re a d to g e th e r a s a w h o le . A d efe n d an t i s en ti tl ed to ha v e jury i n stru cti o n s give n w h ich p rese n t his th eo ry of t he cas e. T hi s ent i t l ementi s l i m i t ed, how ever , i n thatthe C our ti s al l ow ed to re fu se a n in stru c tio n w h ich in c o rr e c tly sta tes th e law , is c o v e re d fa irly el s ew her e i n the i ns truct i ons , ori s w i thoutf oundat i on i n the evi dence . S p ice r v . S ta te , 9 2 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 2 , 3 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i ng P a rk s v . S ta te , 884 So. 2d 738, 746 (M i ss. 200 4)) . T heref ore, i n readi ng the j ury i nst ruct i on s as a w ho l e, this C o u rtm ust d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e ju ry w a s p ro p e rl y in s tru c te d . B u rto n v. B a rn e tt , 615 So. 2d 580, 583 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ). E v e n if o n e s p e c ific in stru c tio n a rg u a b ly is fa u lty , “[d ]efe c ts in sp e c ific i ns truct i ons do notr equi r e r ever s al ‘w her e al l i ns truct i ons t aken as a w hol e f ai r l y - a l though notper f ect l y - announce the appl i cabl e pr i m ary rul es of l aw . ’ ” I d. ( ci t i ng P a

y n e v. R a in For r es t Nurs er ies, I

nc. , 5 4 0 S o . 2 d 3 5 , 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). ¶ 5 8 . I l l i n o i s Ce n tr a l r e q u e s t e d th a t th e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t p r o p o s e d j u ry i n s tru c t i o n D- 8 A,
w hi ch s t at ed: T he Pl ai nt i f

f , J ames W es l ey H al l , had a duty t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e ca r e f or hi s ow n s af

ety w hi l e he w as w or ki ng atthe I l l i noi s C entr al R ai l r oad C om pany

### 25

f aci l i ty. Puta notherw ay, J ames W es l ey H al l w as r es pons i bl e f orexer ci s i ng o rdin ary ca re u n d er the circu m stan ce s ex ist ing at th e ti m e o f P lai n ti ff’ s acc i dent . Such ci r cumst ance s i ncl ude the Pl ai nt i f f’ s exp eri ence , w eather condi t i ons , gr ound and f oot i ng condi t i ons , l ocomot i ve s peed, and the norm al and cu st om ary proced ures and p ract i ces w hen m ou nti ng m ov i ng l oco m oti ves. T he C our tf

ur theri ns truct s the j ury thati f you f i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe Pl ai nt i f f , J ames W es l ey H al l , w hi l e att empt i ng t o m ount a m o v in g lo c o m o tiv e , faile d to e x e rc ise re a so n a b le c a re fo r h is o w n sa fe ty in at t em pti ng t o m ou nt a m ov i ng loc o m oti ve u nd er the ex i st i ng ci rcum st ances, th e n th e P l a i n t i f

f wa s g u i l ty o f

n e g l i g e n c e . I f

y o u f u r th e rf i n d f r o m a prepon derance of the evidence t hat such neg l i gen ce, i f any w as the sole cause of the ac ci denti n ques t i on and the P l ai nt i f f’ s i nj ur i es , then i tw i l l be your s w orn duty t o r eturn a ver di ctf orD ef endantI l l i noi s C entr al R ai l r oad C om pany. ¶5 9. I l l i noi s Cen tr a l a r gu e d tha tthi s i ns truc t i on was n e c e s s a ry t o pr op er l y i ns t ruct t he ju ro rs th a t, i f th e y fo u n d Illino is C e n tra l w a s n o t n e g lig e n t an d H a ll w a s s o lely re sp o n sib le f orhi s i nj ur i es , then the j ury m us tr eturn a ver di cti n i t s f avor . I l l i noi s C entr al al s o ar gued thatthe i ns truct i on connect ed t he spe ci f i c f act s of thi s cas e w i th t he l aw , and i ns truct ed the j ury on w hatt o cons i deri n det erm i ni ng w hetherH al l w as exer ci s i ng r eas onabl e ca r e under the cir cum st ances. ¶ 6 0 . C o n v e rse ly , H a ll arg u e d th e in s tr u c tio n w a s p ro p e rl y d e n ied b e c a u se it faile d to i nst ructthe j ury of Il l i no i s C entr al ’s burden of proof, and fur ther f ai l ed t o ad dress compar at i ve negl i gence . ¶61. T he t r i al j udge deci ded thatthe pr opos ed i ns truct i on w oul d be modi f i ed and gi ven. T he i ns truct i on, as m odi f i ed, s t at ed: T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e Ju ry th a t th e P lain tiff, Ja m e s W e sle y H a ll, h a d a d u ty t o exer ci s e r easonabl e ca r e f orhi s ow n s af

ety w hi l e he w as w or ki ng atthe I l l i noi s Cent r al Rai l r oad C om pany f aci l i ty. T he def

endantha s the bur den of pr oof on thi s i s s ue.

### 26

¶62. O n appea l , I l l i noi s C entr al ar gues that the tr i al court com m i t t ed re ver s i bl e err orby
m odi f yi ng t he i ns truct i on. Speci f i cal l y, I l l i noi s C entr al s t at es thatthe i ns truct i on, “as
m o d if ied b y the C o u rtan d rea d to the jury , w as a b lank et, ab str ac t, b o il erp lat e, j u ry i ns truct i on on a mer e l egal pr i nci pl e, w hi ch w as unr el at ed t o t he f act s and evi dence att r i al and the i s s ues of

the ca s e. ” I l l i no i s C entr al poi nt s outthatthi s C our thas i ns truct ed M i ssi ssi pp i tr i al co urt s t hat j ury “instruct i on s shou l d be t i ed t o the speci fi c fact s of the case
a n d w h e n g iv e n m e re ly in th e a b s tr a c t, m ay b e grou nd s f orerr or . ” A . B . Mc Ca r t

y v. K e l lu m, M . D. , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶6 3. I l l i noi s C ent r al ’ s ar gum entas t o pr op os e d j ury i ns truc t i on D- 8 f ai l s f or s ever al
re a s o n s . F ir s t, Mc Ca rty does nots t and f orthe pr opos i t i on thata tr i al court ’ s gi vi ng of abst racti nst ruct i on s t o the j ury con st i tutes r eve rs i bl e er r or . I n f act , i n Mc Ca rty , this C o u rt caut i oned tr i al court s nott o gi ve abs tr acti ns truct i ons , butl at erhel d thati n r evi ew i ng t he i nst ruct i on s in to to , the j ury w as pr ovi ded w i th the appr opr i at e f act s and s t andar ds . 667 So. 2d a t1 28 7. Thi s Court , the r e f or e , f ou nd the a bs tr a c ti ns truc t i on i s s ue i n Mc Ca rty t o be
w ith o u t m e ri t. I

d . C ontr ary t o the as s ert i on b y t he di s s entthatthe deni al of D - 13 and
m o d if icati o n o f D -8A cau sed “IC R ’s th eo ry o f th e ca se [t o be ] t o tal ly disall o w ed i n th e jury i ns truct i ons , ” I l l i noi s C entr al ’ s theor y of the ca s e w as adequa t el y pr es ent ed w hen vi ew i ng the jury instruct i on s in to to . R e a d in g the jury instruction s as a w h o le, Il li n o is C en tr al’s theory of H al l ’ s contr i but ory negl i gen c e w a s a de qu a t e l y p r e s e nt e d t o the j ury thr ough var i ous otherj ury i nst ruct i on s, i ncludi ng j ury i nst ruct i on 17 (s t at i ng that H al l had a du ty to exerci se r eas onabl e car e f

orhi s ow n saf

ety) , j ury i ns truct i on 18 ( i ns truct i ng t he j ury t o cons i derthe

### 27

negl i gence of

both I l l i noi s C entr al and H al l and as s i gn a per cent age of f aul t , i f any, t o eac h) and j ury i nst ruct i on 2 2 ( a s peci al i nt err ogat ory f or m pr es ent ed t o the j ury t o f i nd w hether Ha l l wa s n e g l i g e n ta n d wh e th e rs u c h n e g l i g e n c e c o n tr i b u t e d t o h i s i n j u r i e s ) . T h e r e f

o r e , we c a n n o tf i n d th a tth e tr i a l j u d g e a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g p r o p o s e d j u ry i n s tru c t i o n D8 A . ¶64. I l l i noi s C entr al al s o pr opos ed j ury i ns truct i on D - 13, w hi ch w oul d ha ve i ns truct ed the j ury as f oll ow s: T he C ou rti nst ruct s the jury thatthe D efendan t , I l l i noi s C entr al R ai l r oad C om pany, has adopt ed s af ety rul es f

orthe conduc ta nd s af

ety of i t s empl oyees in th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f th e ir d u ties an d the ir w o rk . T h e C o u rt fu rth e r in stru c ts th e ju ry th a t y o u m a y c o n sid e r th e v io latio n o f c o m p a n y sa fe ty ru les in det erm i ni ng w hetherornotthe Pl ai nt i f f w as negl i gentatthe t i m e of the a c c id e n t in q u e s tio n . Il l i noi s C entr al R ai l r oad C om pany Saf ety R ul e T-740( b) , s t at es: “ E m p lo y e e s m u s t n o t: . . . b ) A ttem p t to g e t o n o r o ff w h e n e q u ip m e n t is m ovi ng atuns af

e s peed. ” T he C our ti ns truct s the j ury thati f you f i nd f r om a pre ponder ance of the evi dence thatthe Pl ai nt i f f vi ol at ed ei therof

the for egoi ng s af

ety rul e[ s ] , you m ay cons i derthe vi ol at i on of s uch rul e by the Pl ai nt i f f , t ogetherw i th al l of

the f act s and cir cum s t ance s and evi dence , i n det erm i ni ng w hetherornotthe P l a i n t i f f wa s n e g l i g e n ta tth e t i me o f th e a c c i d e n t . I f

y o u f u r th e rf i n d f r o m a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t su c h v io latio n o f th e D e fe n d a n t’s s a fe ty rul es , i f any, w as negl i gence and w as t he s ol e ca us e of the ac ci denti n ques t i on and the Pl ai nt i f

f’ s i nj ur i es , then i tw oul d be yours w orn duty t o r eturn a ver di ct f orthe D ef

endantI l l i noi s C entr al R ai l r oad C om pany. ¶65. I l l i noi s Cent r al ar gued bef or e the tr i al courtthati ns truct i on D - 13 w as neede d i n or der to instruc t th e jury o n it s the o ry th at H all ’s vio lat ion o f T -74 0 p rov ided ev ide n ce o f H all ’s negl i gence . O n the otherha nd, H al l a r gued thatthe i ns truct i on di d notadequa t el y s t at e the

### 28

l aw beca us e i tdi d nots peci f y thatan al l eged vi ol at i on of a s af ety rul e does notpr ove negl i gence on the partof H al l , buti s m er el y a f

act or . T he tr i al j udge l at err ef us ed pr opos ed ju ry in s tru c tio n D -1 3 w ith o u t e x p la n a tio n . ¶ 6 6 . Illino is C e n tra l ar g u e s th a t D -1 3 w a s s u p p o rt e d b y th e e v id e n c e a n d w a s th e o n ly instruction co v ering H all ’s all eg ed v iolati o n o f the sa fety rules a n d , there fore , the tri al co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g th e in stru c tio n . H a ll a rg u e s, h o w e v e r, th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n r ef

us i ng t o gr antD - 13, butmer el y f ol l ow ed the r anks of

m any court s thathave
r ef us ed t o gi ve ef

f ectt o s af ety rul es al l egedl y br oken by the i nj ur ed empl oyee. ¶ 6 7 . A re v iew o f p ro p o se d in stru c tio n D -1 3 e v id e n c e s th a t th e tria l ju d g e d id n o t ab u se h is d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h e i n s tru c t i o n . Al th o u g h n o ts p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d b y th e p a r t i e s , we f i nd thatthe evi dence di d nots uppor ta gi vi ng of D - 13. D - 13 as ked the j ury t o cons i der
w hetherH al l vi ol at ed T-740, w hi ch i ns truct ed empl oyees nott o mount e qui pm entm ovi ng atan u nsafe s peed . T here w as no test im o n y th at th e tr ain in q u esti o n w as m o v ing at an u n safe
s peed a tthe t i m e of

the ac ci dent . T he di s s enteven not es that“H al l admi t t ed thatt he l oco m oti ve w as travel i ng ata saf e speed . ” O ur case l aw i s cl ea r that j ury i nst ruct i on m ust b e s u p p o rt e d b y th e e v id e n c e . See B u rr v. Miss . B ap tist Med. Ctr. , 909 So. 2d 721, 726 ( M i s s . 2005) ( the def

ens e i s ent i t l ed t o j ury i ns truct i ons w hi ch pr es enti t s theory of the ca s e, i f s uppor t ed i n the ev i dence .). ¶ 6 8 . F u rth e rm o re , th e first se n ten c e o f in stru c tio n D -1 3 is a sta tem e n t o f fa c t (th a t Illi n o is C entr al has adopt ed s af ety rul es ) , t o w hi ch I l l i noi s C entr al w as ent i t l ed t o puton evi dence
s how i ng w hetherornots uch f actw as true. T he s econd s ent ence , ( thatthe j ury m ay cons i der

### 29

sa fe ty ru les ), m e re ly p o in ts to a s p e c ific p iec e o f e v id e n c e fo r th e ju ry to c o n sid e r a n d is rep eti ti v e o f pre v iou s ins tru cti o n s. T h e jury w as instructed to “c are full y sc ruti n ize . . . ev ery m at t eri n e vi dence , ” and thi s s ent ence mer el y r epea t s thati ns truct i on, by poi nt i ng t o a s peci f i c pi ece of

evi dence f

orthe j ury t o cons i der . L as t l y, ther e w as no e nt i t l ementt o an i ns truct i on thatpoi nt ed s peci al att ent i on t o T- 740. A s peci f i c r ef er ence t o T - 740 w oul d be
m o re ap p ro p ria te d u rin g clo sin g arg u m e n ts, w h e re the atto rn e y s fa irly su m u p th e a rg u m e n ts
a n d p o in t to s p e c if

ic fa c ts p re s e n te d w h ic h s u p p o rt th e irc a s e . S p ice r v . S ta te , 921 So. 2d 292, 309 ( M i s s . 2006). A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatI l l i noi s C entr al w as notent i t l ed t o D - 13 and the tr i al j udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng the i ns truct i on. B. ¶69. I l l i noi s C entr al next cl ai m s that the tr i al courte rr ed i n gi vi ng i ns truct i on P- 1, w hi ch
s t at ed: I n thi s cas e the Pl ai nt i f f’ s cl ai m s ar e as s ert ed underthe Feder al E m pl oy e r s ’ Li a bi l i ty A c t . The Fe de r a l Empl oy e r s ’ Li a bi l i ty A c t( kn ow n as the F. E . L . A . ) pr ovi des thatevery com m on carr i erby r ai l r oad, w hi l e enga ged in c o m m e rc e b e tw e e n a n y o f th e s e v e ra l sta tes , sh a ll b e liab le in d a m a g e s to any of i t s empl oyees w ho a r e i nj ur ed as a r es ul tof negl i gence by the r ai l r oad. In this case the P l ai nti ff cl ai m s that the D efendan tf ai l ed to ex erci se r eas onabl e ca r e, as r equi r ed by the Feder al E m pl oyer s L i abi l i ty A ct , t o pr ovi de h im w ith a re aso n ab ly sa fe p lace in w h ich to w o rk. S p ec if icall y , the P lai n ti ff cl ai m s the f

ol l ow i ng: ( 1) T hatD ef

endant ’ s pol i cy and rul es r egar di ng the m ount i ng of

m ovi ng R ai l r oad equi pm entw as not r eas onabl y s af

e; or ( 2) T hatD ef

endantf ai l ed t o pr om ul gat e ore nacts af ety rul es m aki ng the w or k envi r onm entr eas onabl y s af e; orAs discussed pre viously, tes timony was presente d from both Hall and Kearn r egarding the 8 muddy and slippery conditions of the yard during and a fter rainfall. Additionally, photographs of the muddy yard were admitted into evidenc e. 

### 30

( 3) T hatD ef

endant ’ s pol i cy and rul es r egar di ng the m ounti ng of

m ovi ng R ai l r oad equi pm enti n i ncl ement w ea ther c o n d it ion s w as n o t r ea so n ab ly sa fe; or (4 ) T h a t D e fe n d a n t fa iled to p ro v id e P lain tiff w ith r eas onabl y s af

e w al kw ays and r eas onabl y s af e w al ki ng co nd i t i on s t o u t i l i z e w he n moun t i ng movi ng Rai l r oad e q u ip m e n t; I n or de rt o pr e va i l o n thi s c l a i m t he Pl a i nt i f f mus tp r ov e e ach of

t he f ol l ow i ng by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence : Fi r s t : T hatthe D ef

endantR ai l r oad w as “negl i gent ” as cl ai m by the Pl ai nt i f f ; and Second: T hats uch negl i gence w as a “ l egal caus e” of damage s us t ai ned b y the P lai n ti ff. T h e firstissue for y o u to co n side r un d er the F ed era l E m p loy ers L i ab i l i ty A c tc l a i m i s whethe rthe Def e nd a nt , o ra ny o f

i t s e mpl oy e es ot her than the P l ai nti ff

, w as “neg l i gen t ” and i f s o, w hethersuc h n egli gen ce w as a “leg al ca u se” o f an y d am ag es su stai n ed b y the P lai n ti ff. ¶70. I l l i noi s C entr al ar gues on appea l that H al l t es t i f i ed that the onl y cl ai m of negl i gence he had e vi dence t o s uppor tw as hi s al l egat i on thatI l l i noi s C entr al ’ s pr act i ce of al l ow i ng empl oyees t o m ountand di s m ountm ovi ng equi pm entw as i nher ent l y uns af e. T heref

ore , I l l i noi s C entr al ar gues , the tr i al cour ter r ed by al l ow ed j ury i ns truct i on P - 1, w hi ch al l ow ed th e ju ry to fin d fo r H a ll o n o th e r cla im s o f n e g lig e n c e , sp e c ifica lly , H a ll’s c laim s th a t Illi n o is C e n tra l w a s n e g lig e n t in fa ili n g to p ro v id e sa fe w a lk w a y s a n d w a lk in g c o n d iti o n s. H a ll p o in ts o u t, ho w e v e r, th a t th e re w a s s u ffic ien t ev id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial in su p p o rt o f h is othercl ai m s of

negl i gence . W e agr ee. A s s t at ed ea r l i er , a party does notconce de an i s s ue

8
orw ai ve a c l ai m , s i m pl y beca us e the party cannotes t abl i s h the cl ai m f r om per s onalTh is A ct w as f ormerly k no wn as the“ Bo ile r Ins pe cti on A ct”and is s til l ref ere nc ed as s uc h 9 in some cases. Th e re co rd indicates that th e trialco urt did no t rule o n th e m eri ts of

thi s moti on , b ut rath er, 10 Hall’ s co un seldid no t dispute th e m oti on and indi cat ed that hewo uld

no t beputtingon

any e viden ce ab out no ns kid

paint . 

### 31 kn ow l edg e. T he p ert i nen tqu est i on i s w hetherthe e v i den ce, t aken as a w ho l e, provides a
s u f f i c i e n tb a s i s f

o rth e c l a i m. ¶71. J ury i nst ruc t i ons s houl d be gr ant ed onl y w her e s om e s uppor t i ng evi dence has been p re s e n te d . B olden , 854 So. 2d at1057. A re vi ew of the r ecor d, i ncl udi ng H al l ’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng t he condi t i on of hi s boot s on the day of the ac ci den t , reveals thatthe ent i r ety of j ury i ns truct i on P- 1 w as s uppor t ed by the evi dence pr es ent ed. T hus , thi s i s sue i s w i thout
m e rit. V. LA Y W I TN ES S TE S TI M ONY ¶7 2. Fi nal l y, I l l i noi s C ent r al ar gu e s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r tc omm i t t e d r e ve r s i bl e err or by
a llo w in g H a ll’s la y w itn e ss to tes tify as to th e sa fe ty o f th e loc o m o tiv e . P rio r to tri a l, Il lin o is C entr al f i l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne s eeki ng t o pr ecl ude H al l ’ s expertf r om o ff eri ng t es t i m ony re g a rd in g lo c o m o tiv e d e sig n , arg u in g tha t su c h tes tim o n y w a s a n im p e rm iss ib le a ttem p t to
r egul at e tr ai n des i gn, w hich i s pr ecl uded by the Feder al L ocomot i ve I ns pect i on A ct (“F L IA ”). 4 9 U . S . C . § 2 0 7 0 1 . T h is m o ti o n w as g ran ted b y th e tr ial co u rt . A t tr ial , H all ’s

9 1 0
co- w or ker , K earn, t es t i f i ed thati tw as eas i ert o m ounta “s w i t chi ng” locom oti ve t han a “r oad” l ocomot i ve. A f t ers ever al obj ect i ons by Il l i no i s C entr al r egar di ng thi s l i ne of ques t i on i ng , the tr i a l c ou r ta l l owed the l i ne of qu e s t i on i ng t o c on t i nu e . I l l i no i s Cent r al

### 32

ar gues thatt hi s t es t i m ony vi ol at es FL I A j ur i s prudence . I n r evi ew i ng a tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o a l l o w o rd i s a l l o w e v i d e n c e , th i s Co u r tu s e s a n d a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w. W ebb , 930 So. 2d at396–97. ¶73. C om pl i ance w i th FL I A r equi r es that a l ocomot i ve onl y be us ed w hen the l ocomot i ve and i t s part s “( 1) ar e i n prope rcondi t i on and saf e t o oper at e w i thoutunnece s s ary dangerof per s onal i nj ury; ( 2) have be en i ns pect ed as r equi r ed underthi s chapt erand r egul at i ons p resc ri b ed b y the S ec retary o f T ran sp o rt ati o n u n d er this ch ap ter; an d (3) c an w ith stan d ev ery t es tpr es cr i bed by the Secr et ary underthi s chapt er . ” 49 U . S. C . § 20701. FL I A conf er s upon the I nt er s t at e C om m er ce Com m i s s i on the duty t o i ns pectl ocomot i ves , as w el l as pr es cr i be th e ru le s a n d re g u la tio n s fo r d e te rm in in g f itn e s s o f l o c o m o tiv e s . N ap ie rv. Atl

. Coas t Line R . R . Co. , 27 2 U . S . 60 5, 61 2; 47 S . C t . 20 7, 20 9; 71 L . E d. 43 2, 43 8– 3 9 (1 92 6). T his , ther ef or e, excl udes s t at e r egul at i on of s af ety appl i ance s , par t s and appur t enanc es of lo c o m o tiv e s . I

d. at 613. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas i ndi cat ed thati n pas s i ng FL I A , C ongr es s int end ed t he A ctt o occupy the ent i r e f i el d of r egul at i ng l ocomot i ve e q u ip m e n t. I

d. a t 6 1 1 . ¶ 7 4 . W h ile it is c le a r t h a t F L IA p r e e m p ts a n y s ta te r e g u la ti o n o f l o c o m o tiv e d e s ig n , a m aj ori ty o f courts h av e al so found that FL IA preem pts com m on l aw act i on s agai nst lo c o m o tiv e o p e ra to rs a n d lo c o m o tiv e m a n u fa c tu re rs . S e e , e .g ., I n re W . V a. A s bes tos L iti gati on , 592 S. E . 2d 818, 822 ( W . V a. 2003) ( hol di ng asbes t os cl ai m agai ns tr ai l r oad p re e m p ted b y th e F L IA ); G en eral Motors Corp. v. K

il go re , 853 So. 2d 171, 176 ( A l a. 2002) ( f i ndi ng pl ai nt i f

f’ s comm on l aw cl ai m ag ai ns tr ai l r oad manuf actur ert o be pr eempt ed by

### 33

F L IA ); Scheiding v. G ener al Motors Cor

p. , 9 9 3 P . 2 d 99 6 , 10 0 2 (C al. 2 0 0 0 ) (f ind ing F L IA pr eempt s empl oyees pr oduct s l i abil i ty cl ai m agai ns tl ocomot i ve manuf actur e) . T her ef

or e, I l l i noi s C entr al corr ect l y s oughta mot i on i n l i m i ne t o p r e v e n tHa l l f r o m a s s e r t i n g a n y c l a i ms a s to th e tr a in ’s d e s ig n . ¶7 5 . C o n tra ry to Il li n o is C en tr al’s arg u m en t, h o w ev er, w e fi n d n o v iolati o n o f F L IA in K earn’ s t es t i m ony. W hen as ked t o des cr i be a sw i t ch engi ne, K earn t es t i f i ed thata s w i t ch
e n g in e is a n e n g in e sp e c ifica lly b u iltto sw itch c a rs, a s o p p o se d to a ro a d e n g in e , w h ich is bui l tdi f f er ent l y. H e f

ur thert es t i f

i ed thats om et i m e i n the ni net i es , I l l i noi s C entr al s t opped
us i ng s w i t ch engi nes and s t art ed usi ng roa d engi nes i n t he yar d. A f t erbei ng aske d aboutt he di f f er ence betw een mount i ng thes e tw o types of engi nes , K earn s t at ed, “i t ’ s a di f f er ence b etw ee n n igh t and d ay . A sw it ch en g ine h as a b igg er fo o t[ , ] w ell , it ’s ea sier t o m o u n t, it ’s
s a fe r t o m o u n t, a n d it’ s ju s t m e a n t f o r t h e y a rd I t h in k .” ¶7 6. W e f

ai l t o s e e ho w thi s t e s t i mony vi ol a t e s FLI A , w hi c h mer e l y pr e e mpt s s t at e l aw r egul at i ons a nd c om m on l aw a ct i ons r egar di ng l ocomot i ve des i gn. T her ef or e, thi s cl ai m has
n o m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 7 7 . H a v in g c o n sid e re d th e a rg u m e n ts se t fo rth b y th e p a rties in th e ir b rie fs to th is C o u rt, and havi ng car ef

ul l y r evi ew ed the r ecor d, w e f i nd thatI l l i noi s C entr al ’ s ar gum ent s have no
m er i t . T her ef

or e, thi s C our taff

i r m s the j ury ver di cti n f avorof H al l i n the amountof $ 1 ,5 0 1 ,9 0 7 .9 7 . ¶ 7 8 . AFF I RM ED .

### 34

DI AZ , EAS LEY AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , CO NCU R. S M I TH, C. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON J OI NE D B Y COB B , P . J . , AND CA RL S ON, J . W AL L E R, P . J . , AN D G RA VE S , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . S M I T H, CH I E F J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶79. T he m aj or i ty hol ds that the tr i al court di d not err and acc or di ngl y af f i r m s the ver di ct aw ar ded f

ordamages i n f

avorof H al l f orhi s broke n l eg and agai ns tIl l i noi s C entr al ( “I C R ”) i n the am ou nt of $l , 50l , 907. 97. I f i nd s ever al i s s ues i n r egar d t o the j ury i ns truct i ons and
e x p e rt te s tim o n y w h ic h in m y v ie w c o n s ti tu te e rr o r b y th e tr ia l c o u rt . A c c o rd in g ly , I
re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶80. Fi r s t , i n m y vi ew , the maj or i ty err s i n uphol di ng the tr i al courti n i t s gr ant i ng of P lai n ti ff’ s instruc ti o n P -1 and 1 0 , w h ich w ere fac t- sp ec if ic i n stru cti o n s tha t i n form ed the ju ry o f H all ’s claim s o f ne g li g en ce . T h is error is co m p o u n d ed b y the tri al co u rt ’s de n ial o f IC R ’s Ju ry In stru c tio n D -1 3 a n d d ra stic m o d if ic a tio n o f D -8 (a ), b o th o f w h ich w e re a lso fa c tsp ec if ic i n stru cti o n s co n tai n ing IC R ’s th eo ry o f de fen se, du ty o f ca re, violati o n o f IC R ’s
s af ety rul e T-740 a nd cl ai m s t hati tw as H al l ’ s negl i gence thatc aus ed thi s a cci dent . T o gr ant p lai n ti ff’ s i n stru cti o n s bu t d en y de fen d an t’ s w as b lat an tl y un fair. T h e g ran ti n g of H a ll’ s af or ement i oned i ns truct i ons w i thoutm odi f i cat i on al l ow ed the theory of the cl ai m t hat i nadequa t e w al ki ng condi t i ons caus ed orcont r i but ed t o H al l ’ s acc i dent , w hen H al l admi t t ed h e d id n ’t k n o w w h a t ca u se d h is a c c id e n t. T h e m a jo rity fu rth e r c o m p o u n d s its e rro r in hol di ng thatI C R ’ s att empt t o r el y upon a vi ol at i on of S af ety R ul e T-740 c ons t i tut ed negl i gence pers e. T hati s si m pl y notw hatICR ’ s i ns truct i on st at ed. I ns t ead, the i ns truct i on m e re ly a llo w e d th e ju ry to c o n sid e r a v io latio n o f S a fe ty R u le T -7 4 0 a s o n e fa c to r a lo n g w ith

### 35

a n y o th e rs th e y m ig h t fin d w h ic h m a y h a v e c o n trib u ted to n e g lig e n c e in c a u sin g th is
a c c id e n t, th u s a s s is tin g th e ju ry in a rr iv in g a t th e irv e rd ic t. ¶ 8 1 . W e h a v e in stru c ted trial co u rts tha t “ ju ry in stru c tio n s sh o u ld b e tied to th e sp e c ific fact s of the cas e and w hen gi ven m er el y i n a bs tr actmay be gr ounds f ore rr or . ” A. B. Mc Ca r t y v. Ke l lu m, M . D. , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ) ( quot i ng T . K . Stanley, I

nc. v. Cas on , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 5 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); E s ta te o f L a w le rv. W

e s to n , 451 So . 2d 73 9, 74 1 ( M i s s . 1984

); H a rk in s v. P a s c h a ll, 348 So. 2d 1019, 1023 ( M i s s . 1977 ) ; Fr eez e v. T a y lo r , 257 So. 2d 509, 511 ( M i s s . 1972) ) . T he Mc Ca rty C o u rtm ad e c lea r th a t m ere d efinit ion o f th e stan d ard o f ca re d o es n o t dir ec t th e jury to d o an y thing an d that jury i nst ruct i on s w hich r el at e abstractl egal pri ncipl es unrel at ed t o the fact s and is sues of the case te n d t o m is le a d th e ju ry . I d. I n Cas on , thi s C our thel d thats uch an a bs tr acti ns truct i on s houl d notb e g iv e n o n r e tr ia l. Cas on , 614 So. 2d at952. Fur ther , i n H arkins , we admoni s hed the benc h a nd ba rthatthe us e of a n a bs tr acti ns truct i on w i thoutappl i cat i on of th e s p e c if

ic fa c ts o f t h e c a s e u n d e r c o n s id e ra tio n in v ite s re v e rs ib le e rr o r. H arkins , 348 So. 2 d a t 1 0 2 3 . ¶8 2. Fur t her m or e, i n r evi ew i ng the gr ant i ng orr efusal of j ury i nst ruct i ons , our

“ o v e r a r c h i n g c o n c e r n i s th a tt h e j u ry w a s f a i r l y i n s tru c t e d a n d t h a te a c h p a r ty 's pr oof
- gr ounded theory of

the ca s e w as pl ace d bef or e i t . ” Splain v. H

ines , 609 So. 2d 1234, 1 2 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ) ( qu ot i ng R e s te r v . L o tt , 566 So. 2d 1266, 1269 ( M i s s . 1990) . W e have h eld th at bo th p arti es h av e the ri g h t t o em b o d y their th eo rie s o f th e c ase in the jury i ns truct i ons pr ovi ded ther e i s t es t i m ony t o s uppor ti t , butonl y " i f m ade c ondi t i onal upon t he

### 36

ju ry ' s fi n d in g th a t s u c h fa c ts e x is te d ." R ees e v. Sum m ers , 7 92 S o. 2d 99 2, 99 4 (M i ss. 2001) ( quot i ng Murphy v. B urney , 27 So. 2d 773, 774 ( M i s s . 1946) ) . B y denyi ng D - 13 and dr as t i cal l y m odi f

yi ng D - 8( a) t o a n abs tr acti ns truct i on, w hi ch mer el y def i nes the s t andar d of
c a re a n d w h o lly fa ils to in stru c t th e ju ry to d o a n y th in g , IC R ’s th e o ry o f th e c a se w a s to tally d isa llo w e d in th e ju ry ins tru c tio n s. H e re , the d e fe n se w a s p ro h ib ited fro m p re se n tin g th e ir theor i es vi a j ury i ns truct i ons , w hi l e the pl ai nt i f f’ s i ns truct i ons w er e al l gr ant ed. ¶8 3 . N ex t, I fi n d m y se lf a t o d d s w ith the m ajority co n ce rnin g the P lai n ti ff’ s ex p ert B erq u ist . F ir st, in m y v iew B erq u istw as n o t p rop erly q u ali fi ed u n d er D au bert t o t es t i f y as he did i n this case regar ding H al l ’s att em pted m ou nti ng of the m ov i ng l oco m oti ve. B erqui st s houl d nothave be en al l ow ed t o t es t i f y on thi s i s s ue as he w as notpr oper l y qual i f i ed as an experton s w i t chi ng oper at i ons orthe oper at i on of s af ety rul es governi ng the met hods or pr ocedur es us ed i n s w i t chi ng ope r at i ons . B er qui s tmustbe abl e t o dr aw upon s om e s peci al
s ki l l , know l edge, orexper i ence s t o f orm ul at e hi s opi ni on. E xam i ning B erqui st ’s backgr ound,
we f i n d th e r e c o r d r e v e a l s th a ti n 1 9 6 0 h e wo r k e d f o rNo r th e rn P a c i f

i c Ra i l r o a d a s a c l a i ms a g e n t fo r tw o y e a rs. T h e n h e w o rk e d at F lo rid a E a st C o a st R a ilro a d a s a c laim s a g e n t u n til 1 9 7 3 . H e n ev er w o rke d for a n o ther railr o ad . H e w as n ev er a n e n g inee r, co n d u ctor, s w i t chman orut i l i ty m an. I n 1973, he comm ence d w or k f orH as t i ngs and G ol dm an Law Fi r m as an i nves t i gat oras s i gned t o a uni tatthe f i r m thatrepr esent ed i nj ur ed r ai l r oad
e m p lo y e e s, o r F E L A p lain tiffs. S in c e 1 9 8 2 h e h a s w o rk e d as a se lf n a m e d , “ra ilro a d sa fe ty cons ul t ant . ” H e i s notcert i f i ed and hol ds no pr of

es s i onal t i t l e, l i cens e, orcert i f i cat e. H e has no f or m al tr ai ni ng on r ai l r oad oper at i ons ors af ety rul es a nd has neverbeen t es t ed on the

### 37

s ubj ectm att er . M or e i m por t ant l y, he has neveratt empt ed t o m ounta l ocomot i ve dur i ng s w i t chi ng oper at i ons . H e nei therpe r f orm ed an i ndepende nti nves t i gat i on of thi s acc i dentnor e x a m in e d th e a re a o f th e y a rd w h e re it o c c u rre d . In m y v iew , in o rd e r to m e e t D a u b ert’s pr ongs , B er qui s tm us tbe exper i ence d orhave ha d advanc ed tr ai ni ng qual i f yi ng hi m t o r ender
a n e x p e rt o p in io n re g a rd in g m o u n tin g o f a m o v in g lo c o m o tiv e a s it re late s to th e sp e c ific i ssues i n the case atb ar. G eneral ex peri ence i n a spec i al i zed fi el d do es no tq uali fy a w i tness as an expe r t . T hi s C our thas hel d thatan ex pert ’ s t es t i m ony i s notadmi s s i bl e unl es s t he
w i tnes s “ pos s es s es pe cul i arknow l edge ori nf or m at i on r egar di ng the r el evants ubj ectm att er w hi ch i s notl i kel y t o be pos s es s ed by a l ayman. ” Nunn al l y v. R . J. R eynol

ds T obacco Co. , 869 S o. 2d 373, 384 ( M i s s . 2004). I n a FE L A cas e, the Fi f th C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s has h eld th at ge n era l exp erien ce in o n e ra il roa d fi eld d o es n o t qu ali fy o n e to testi fy as a n ex p ert i n al l r ai l r oad f

i el ds , es peci al l y w hen t he p urport ed expert has no t rai ni ng, experi ence, or s peci al i z ed know l edge w hat s oever i n t he area of hi s prof f ere d t es t i m ony. ” E dm onds
v. Il linois Centr al

G ul f R ailr oad Co. , 910 F. 2d 1284, 1287 ( 5 C i r . 1990) . B er qui s t ’ s l ack th of educa t i on, f

orm al tr ai ni ng, orexper i ence i n m ount i ng m ovi ng l ocomot i ves and rul es conce rni ng the s ame m ake hi m unqual i f i ed as an expertacc or di ng t o D au bert as w el l as M .R .E . 7 0 2 . ¶8 4 . T h e sec o n d pro n g o f D au bert is n o t m e t e ith e r. B e rq u ist is c lea rly a d v o c a tin g th a t a s af erm ethod of

carrying outhi s j ob des cr i pt i on exi s t ed f orH al l ( don’ tm ounta movi ng l ocomot i ve) , beca us e a mer e f ourotherr ai l r oads outof 400 nat i onw i de have s t opped doi ng s o. I n f act , H al l coul d have checked hi s boot s f i r s t , orcal l ed the engi neer , as he had done

### 38

m o m en ts be fore , an d slow ed o r st o p p ed the train p ri o r t o m o u n ti n g . T h e F if th C ir cu itC o u rt of A ppeal s has addr es s ed thi s i s s ue of al t ernat i ve pr ocedur e i n a FE L A cas e and hel d t hat “the t as k atw hi ch M r . Sot o w as i nj ur ed w as on e t hatcoul d be done s af el y by the met hod
w hi ch he w as t ol d t o us e and w as us i ng. ” Soto v. S outher n P aci f i c Trans p. Co. , 644 F. 2d 1 1 4 7 (5 C ir. 1 9 8 1 ); see al so Stil l m an 811 F. 2d at838 ( w her e thatco urtst at ed as I have th p re v io u sly h e re in , “th e re lev a n t in q u iry w a s w h e th e r th e ra ilro a d h a d e x e rc ise d re a so n a b le care, not w hetherthe proced ures used by the rai l road cou l d hav e been m ade safe r. ”) I d. T hi s C our ts houl d f

ol l ow and appl y her e the dec i s i ons of the Fi f th C i r cui ti n S o to . ¶ 8 5 . F u rth e r, H a ll d id n o t id e n tify B e rq u ist in re sp o n se to in ter ro g a to rie s, th o u g h h e d id
s ubm i tB er qui s t ’ s r eportata l at erdat e. A l though the r eportr ef er ence d r ai l r oads now i s s ui ng ru les p ro h ib iti n g th e p ra c tice o f m o u n tin g m o v in g lo c o m o tiv e s, it d id n o t sp e c ifica lly sta te B er qui s t ’ s opi ni on as t o w hy thes e r ai l r oad s cha nged thei rrul es . B er qui s t ’ s vi ew w as t hat
m ount i ng m ovi ng l ocomot i ves atany s peed i s uns af e. Even more c r i t i cal w as the f actthat B er qui s t ’ s r eportdi d notr ef er ence a bookl etpubl i s hed by FR A r egar di ng s t at i s t i cal dat a of
ra ilro a d a c c id e n ts, y e t h e re p e a ted ly tes tified re g a rd in g sta tistics fro m th e b o o k let. H a ll fa ile d to p ro d u c e th e d o c u m e n tatio n d u rin g d isc o v e ry . B e rq u ist c e rta in ly re lied h e a v ily upon i tdur i ng t es t i m ony. Itw as neveroff er ed, i dent i f

i ed ori ntr oduced attr i al . W e do not know f ors ur e i f

i n f actthe bookl etexi s t s . W or s e y et , as di d the Pl ai nt i f f i n Se y m our , H a ll’s e x p e rt id e n tified a m e re fo u r r a ilro a d s o u t o f m o re th a n 4 0 0 o p e ra tin g n a tio n w id e in
w hi ch an a l t ernat i ve m ethod t o ICR ’ s Saf ety R ul e T-740 w as ut i l i zed. B er qui s t ’ s t es t i m ony str ikes m e a s b eing n o w h ere clos e to a req u ir ed , rea so n ab le, rail roa d ind u stry stan d ard

### 39

re g a rd in g m o u n tin g o f m o v in g lo c o m o tiv e s d u rin g sw itch in g o p e ra tio n s . N o r d o e s it
rea so n ab ly ide n ti fy th is as a n inh ere n tl y u n safe p rac ti ce tha t ca n n o t be d o n e in a sa fe m an n er. St a nd i ng a l on e , the f

a c t s s up pl i e d c on c e rni ng H a l l ’ s 39
- ye a rc a r e e rof s a f e l y mount i ng m ov i ng l oco m oti ves beli e such a con t enti on . B erqui st ’s t est i m on y is i nsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh I CR ’ s n e g l i g e n c e u n d e rF E L A a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. ¶86. Fi nal l y, the tr i al court err ed agai n i n al l ow i ng t es t i m ony of B ubba K ern, H al l ’s cow orker, that i tw as easi er to m o u n t a s w i t ching l oco m oti ve than a g eneral -purpose l ocomot i ve, the l att erof the tw o bei ng thatw hi ch w as us ed t o s w i t ch car s i n the yar d atthe t i m e of thi s acci den t . P r i ort o tr i al , the courthad pr oper l y gr ant ed I C R ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne pr ecl udi ng t es t i m ony be yond FR A r egul at i ons governi ng tr ai n and l ocomot i ve des i gns and th e p u rp o se s o f th e ir u se . D e v e lo p in g an d p ro p o u n d in g sp e c ific r e g u latio n s g o v e rn in g tra in desi gn i s a proper f

un ct i on o nly forF R A , an d any clai m rel at ed t o the desi gn and / or purpo se of a tr ai n ( i ncl udi ng the one a ti s s ue her e) i s pr ecl uded by the Locom ot i ve I nspec t i on A ct
u n d e r F R A ju ri s d ic tio n . Se e 4 9 U . S . C . 20701. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas
c o n sid e re d th is s tatu te i n N apierv. A tlanti c Coas t

L ine R . R . Co. , 27 2 U. S. 60 5, 61 3; 47 S. C t . 207, 71 L . E d. 432 ( 1926) a nd he l d thatC ongr es s i nt ended the LIA t o “occ upy the f i el d”
o f l o c o mo t i v e e q u i p me n tr e g u l a t i o n . T h u s , wh e n a l o c o mo t i v e i s i n c o mp l i a n c e wi th L I A, th a t lo c o m o tiv e is s a fe a s a m a tte r o f fe d e ra l la w . I d . H er e, K ern w as al l ow ed t o t es t i f y, over I C R ’ s obj ect i on, thatthe us e of the gener al
- purpos e l ocomot i ve w as uns af e beca us e i tw as n o t a sw it ch ing loco m o ti v e. T h is t esti m o n y p u t a ne w theo ry o f ne g li g en ce b efo re the jury

### 40

w h ich w as n o t estab li sh ed i n th e p lead ing s an d w as n o t d iscl o sed by H all ’s r esp o n se s to IC R ’s in te rr o g a to ri e s . T h is e rr o r m a n d a te s a n e w tr ia l. ¶8 7. D ue t o t hes e subs t ant i a l a nd pr e j ud i c i a l e rr or s , I f

i nd tha tI c a nn ota gr e e w i t h t he
ma j o r i ty t o u p h o l d th i s v e r d i c t . Th e s e e rr o r s c o mb i n e d t o c a u s e e x tr e me p r e j u d i c e t o I CR,
w hi ch ce r t ai nl y di d notr ece i ve a f ai rtr i al . T hi s i s es peci al l y egr egi ous w her e the j ury f ai l ed t o cons i derthe overw hel m i ng evi dence and l aw i n f i ndi ng no compar at i ve negl i gence on t he p a rt o f H a ll. ¶ 8 8 . I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. COBB , P . J . , AND CA RL S ON, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.