96-200

 No. 96-200

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

JACKIE A. McGREGOR,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION, a/k/a AMTRAK,

 Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Cascade,

 The Honorable Robert P. Goff, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 Chas. C. Dearden, Attorney at Law, Whitefish, Montana

 For Respondent:

 Robert E. Sheridan; Garlington, Lohn & Robinson,

 Missoula, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: July 31, 1997

 Decided: August 12, 1997

Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-200%20Opinion.htm (1 of 6)4/16/2007 11:40:56 AM
96-200

 Jackie McGregor, a ticket agent for Amtrak, filed this suit pursuant to the 

Federal

Employer's Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. 51 et seq., seeking damages for injuries she

received while unloading baggage. She appeals from a special jury verdict finding no

negligence on the part of Amtrak. We affirm. 

 Issues Presented

 1. Whether the verdict of no negligence is supported by the evidence. 

 2. Whether the court erred in excluding evidence comparing the baggage

volume in Whitefish with the volume in Spokane and Seattle. 

 3. Whether the court erred in allowing Amtrak's counsel to question McGregor

about a separate ADA claim that was pending against Amtrak. 

 Discussion

 McGregor began working as a ticket agent for Amtrak in 1983 and continued

working as a lead ticket agent until her injury. As a ticket agent, her duties 

included the

handling of baggage and express items weighing up to 75 lbs. per item. On January 4,

1994, McGregor was unloading baggage from the train to the baggage cart. The baggage

was stacked in the doorway of the train car. She was in the process of taking bags 

down

from the car and placing them on the cart when she took a "quite heavy" bag 

(estimated

to be 65-70 lbs.) and placed it on the cart and injured her arm in the process.

 1. Whether the verdict of no negligence is supported by the evidence.

 Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict is 

limited. 

Our standard of review in a jury case is set forth in Lee v. Kane (1995), 270 Mont. 

505,

510-11, 893 P.2d 854, 857 (quoting Hansen v. Hansen (1992), 254 Mont. 152, 157, 835

P.2d 748, 750-51) as follows:

 "Our scope of review of jury verdicts is necessarily very limited. 

 This Court will not reverse a jury verdict which is supported by substantial

 credible evidence. This Court has defined substantial credible evidence as

 evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

 conclusion. The evidence may be inherently weak and conflicting, yet it

 may still be considered substantial. It is well established that if the

 evidence is conflicting, it is within the province of the jury to determine the

 weight and credibility to be afforded the evidence. Finally, upon reviewing

 a jury verdict to determine if substantial credible evidence exists to support

 the verdict, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable

 to the prevailing party."

 McGregor's theory was that Amtrak was negligent in failing to adopt and

implement rules and procedures for the safe performance of her work. Specifically, 

she

argued that the weight limit and process used were unsafe; that despite awareness 

that its

75 lbs. per bag limit had caused injury to its employees, Amtrak continued to accept

baggage up to 75 lbs. McGregor presented testimony from a number of Amtrak

employees who testified that they had expressed concerns to their supervisors that 

the 75

lb. weight limit was too heavy. McGregor also relied on an interoffice memorandum

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-200%20Opinion.htm (2 of 6)4/16/2007 11:40:56 AM
96-200

issued on September 20, 1994, after her injury, which stated, in part, 

 Effective with the October 30, 1994 timetable change, we have reduced the

 maximum weight of checked baggage to 50 lbs. per item. Passengers may

 check a heavier suitcase or carton, not to exceed 75 lbs., upon payment of

 a $10.00 surcharge. The intent is to provide a financial incentive for

 passengers to keep their baggage light while still accommodating the

 occasional passenger who unavoidably has a heavier piece that does not

 exceed the existing Amtrak Express regular weight limit.

 Amtrak Express maximum weights (regular express, 75 lbs.) are not being

 changed as it would make us uncompetitive with other shipping services. 

 Most have a weight limit of 70-75 lbs. per piece.

 McGregor contends that Amtrak "essentially admitted that it [the weight limit] 

was

unsafe when it took steps to reduce the hazard by limiting checked baggage to 50 

pounds,

thereby reducing the volume of items over 50 pounds." On appeal, she argues that the

above facts prove more than "slight negligence," which is all that is required in a 

FELA

action, Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. (1957), 352 U.S. 500, 506, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1

L.Ed.2d 493; and that the verdict of no negligence is not supported by the evidence 

and

must be reversed. 

 Amtrak asserts that the verdict is supported by the following substantial 

evidence:

 The District Court admitted safety rules entitled "Amtrak Onboard and Station

Services Safety Rules." These rules provided specific direction to Amtrak employees 

on

when to seek assistance in lifting objects that were unwieldy and/or heavy and how 

to use

proper body mechanics when lifting the object. The rules provide that employees 

should

avoid twisting or rotating the torso while lifting. In addition, Amtrak presented 

testimony

that it provided video and training aids for station employees regarding the proper

techniques for lifting. 

 As to the testimony presented by McGregor that other employees had expressed

concerns regarding the 75 lb. limit, Amtrak countered this testimony with evidence 

that

the 75 lb. limit is universally accepted in the transportation industry, including 

airline,

bus and railroad. Amtrak's Medical Director, Dr. McLean, testified that 

historically the

entire railroad industry has had a weight limitation of 75 lbs. per bag. 

 As to McGregor's contention that the September 20, 1994 memorandum is an

admission by Amtrak that its weight limit of 75 lbs. was negligent, Amtrak points out

that, even under the new policy of charging for bags over 50 lbs., it continued to 

accept

bags weighing up to 75 lbs. Amtrak presented testimony that the main purpose of the

change in billing policy was to generate revenue. The memorandum exhibit offered by

McGregor clearly states that the maximum weight remained the same. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-200%20Opinion.htm (3 of 6)4/16/2007 11:40:56 AM
96-200

 Amtrak Express maximum weights (regular express, 75 lbs.) are not being

 changed as it would make us uncompetitive with other shipping services. 

 Most have a weight limit of 70-75 lbs. per piece.

 We conclude that, although there may have been conflicting evidence on the

question of negligence, there was, nonetheless, substantial evidence which a 

reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion of no negligence on the part of

Amtrak. Lee, 893 P.2d at 857. We affirm the District Court's denial of McGregor's

motion for a new trial wherein she contended that there was insufficient evidence to

support the verdict. 

 2. Whether the court erred in excluding evidence comparing the baggage

volume in Whitefish with the volume in Spokane and Seattle. 

 A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed 

unless

it was an abuse of discretion. Burlingham v. Mintz (1995), 270 Mont. 277, 279, 891

P.2d 527, 529. In order for an abuse of discretion as to an evidentiary ruling to 

be the

basis for a new trial, the court's error must be so significant that it materially 

affects the

substantial rights of the appellant. Peschke v. Carroll College (Mont. 1996), 929 

P.2d

874, 881, 53 St.Rep. 1428, 1433. 

 It was McGregor's contention that Amtrak failed to provide sufficient help at 

the

Whitefish station. McGregor's evidence showed that Whitefish was staffed with five

employees who had to cover two trains per day with a minimum of two employees

working each train. In the period leading up to her injury, McGregor had worked nine

out of ten days. McGregor sought to prove her theory of understaffing by introducing

evidence that Whitefish handled more baggage than either Spokane or Seattle. Amtrak

objected to this evidence on the basis that Spokane and Seattle were "heavy 

stations" and

handled more trains per day than did Whitefish and thus there was no valid 

comparison. 

The court sustained the objection and excluded the evidence.

 The jury was instructed that liability could attach if Amtrak failed "to provide

sufficient manpower to complete the work in a reasonably safe manner." McGregor

contends that the court's excluding of the evidence comparing Whitefish with Spokane

and Seattle precluded her from showing that her injury was due to understaffing. 

 Amtrak contended that since Spokane and Seattle handle more trains than

Whitefish, and since they, unlike Whitefish, handle palletized units, there was no 

valid

comparison to be made between the baggage volume figures. In a pretrial discovery

deposition, Amtrak's Product Line Manager, Gary Erford, testified that baggage counts

at Whitefish could not be compared with those at Spokane and Seattle since those two

cities were classified as heavy stations handling palletized shipments. A large 

palletized

shipment would be shown on the baggage reports as one unit, just as a single ski bag 

at

Whitefish would be shown as one unit. 

 Furthermore, McGregor, on cross-examination, testified that there was a 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-200%20Opinion.htm (4 of 6)4/16/2007 11:40:56 AM
96-200

sufficient

crew to perform the baggage handling function on the day she was injured. 

 Q And it would be fair to say, would it not, that based upon the amount

 of baggage that was on board that train, and what was going to be put on

 the train, in other words, both loading and unloading, that four people was

 an adequate crew to handle this baggage that day?

 A Yes.

 Q You're not saying that there was not a sufficient crew there to help

 you unload the bags that day, are you? 

 A No, I'm not. 

 Given the differences between the Spokane and Seattle baggage statistics as

compared to those of Whitefish and McGregor's concession that the staffing was

sufficient on the day in question, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its

discretion in excluding the evidence of the baggage volume figures from Spokane and

Seattle. 

 3. Whether the court erred in allowing Amtrak's counsel to question McGregor

 about a separate ADA claim that was pending against Amtrak. 

 In response to a question on direct examination about her attempts to return to

work, McGregor testified that: "After 30 years I just felt that they could do 

something

to accommodate me." Then, on cross-examination, over counsel's objection as to

relevancy, she was asked whether she had a lawsuit pending against Amtrak in U.S.

District Court concerning her "accommodation." McGregor replied that her counsel had

filed such a lawsuit. The court denied McGregor's motion for a mistrial and, at the 

close

of the evidence, the court gave a curative instruction that, "You have heard 

testimony the

Plaintiff has another lawsuit against Amtrak involving other issues. You are 

instructed

not to consider the existence of that lawsuit in any way in your deliberations." 

McGregor

moved for a new trial arguing:

 I am concerned that the jury, now being aware of the fact of the pendency

 of the other case, may somehow feel or determine it appropriate to reduce

 the award here figuring that the rest is going to be picked up there.

 . . . .

 But there's no way we can exclude the possibility that they may deem it

 appropriate to reduce the award here. 

The court denied the motion. 

 McGregor objected to the cross-examination about her pending claim in Federal

Court on the basis that such testimony was irrelevant and would adversely affect the

jury's computation of damages. Since the jury found no negligence by Amtrak, it did 

not

reach the issue of damages. Thus, the error, if any, was harmless and did not 

affect a

substantial right of McGregor's. See Peschke, 929 P.2d at 881. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-200%20Opinion.htm (5 of 6)4/16/2007 11:40:56 AM
96-200

 Affirmed. 

 /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-200%20Opinion.htm (6 of 6)4/16/2007 11:40:56 AM