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 4 - CA- 0 0 8 7 6 - S CT FRAN CESM

ARY ( RO BB I NS ) RICHA RD S ON, I NDI V I DUA L L Y AN

D A SAD M

I NI S T RA T RI X O F T H E EST AT E O F M

ICH AEL RA Y RO BB I

N S, II, DECEAS

ED

v. NOR FO L K S OUT

HER N RAI

L W AY C OM

P AN Y
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 26/ 2004 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. T H O M A S J. G A R D N E R , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: ALCORN 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 : J O H N W . C H A N D L E R , J R
. P AM EL A R. O’ DW YER P HI L R. HI NT ON A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EE: STEPH A N I E C A M I LLE RE I FER S E VE RE T T B. GI BS ON 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 - 01/ 19/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , P . J. , E A SL E Y A N D C A R L SO N , JJ. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s w r ongful death cas e ar i s es fr om an acc i dent i n w hi ch a t r ai n col l i ded w i t h a ca r
cross i ng t he rai l road t racks ata grade cross i ng . T he dri ver of the car, M i chael R ayR ob bins, died as a r esul tof h i s i njur i es fr om t he acc i den t
. H i s m other , F rances M ary(R ob bins) R i char ds on, s ued both A l corn C ount y , t he countyin w h ich t he i nci dentoccurr ed, andRi c har ds ondo e s no tap pe a l fr om th e tr i a l c ourt ’ s grant of s ummary j ud gm e nt a s t o Al c orn C ounty. 1 

### 2 N or fol k Sout hern R ai l w ayC om panyfornegl i gence . A l corn C ount ypr evai l ed on i t s m ot i on fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, leav ing N o rfo lk S o u thern the re m ainin g d ef en d an t. A t tr ial , the ju ry

1

re tu rn e d a v e rd ict f

o r N o rf o lk S o u th e rn , an d th e trial c o u rt e n ter e d ju d g m e n t co n sis ten t w ith th e ju ryv e rd ict. R ich a rd so n n o w a p p e a ls to u s, a ss e rtin g e rro r in th e trial c o u rt’s e n tryo f its f in a l ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f N o rf o lk S o u th e rn . F in d in g n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r, w e a f f ir m . F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2
. O n M ay 1 0 , 1 9 9 9 , sixteen y ea r o ld M icha el R ay (M ikie) R o b b ins w as d ri v ing o v er a rail roa d g rad e c ross in g o n C o u n tyR o ad 7 1 5 in A lcorn C o u n tyw h en a N o rfo lk S o u thern R ai l w ayC om panyt r ai n s t ruck hi s car . M i ki e di ed as a r es ul tof t he i nj ur i es s us t ai ned i n t he col l i s i on. T he gr ade c r os s i ng w as equi pped w i t h pas s i ve w arni ng devi ces , s uch as advanc e
w arni ng s i gns and pave m entm ar ki ngs , butnotact i ve w arni ng devi ces , s uch as fl as hi ng
s i gnal l i ght s and aut om at i c gat es . A ddi t i onal l y , t her e w as l i m i t ed vi s i bi l i t y t o dr i ver s att he gr ade c r os s i ng beca us e of a n embankm ent , gr as s , t r ees , and debr i s w hi ch obs t ruct ed t he vi ew
o n th e rig h t o f

w a y . R ich a rd so n , M ik ie’ s m o th e r a n d a d m in istra trix o f h is e sta te, b ro u g h t su it againstN orfol k S ou t hern, and l at er am end ed the com plai nt t o ad d A l corn C o u n tyas a d e f e n d a n t. In h e r a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, R ich a rd so n a lleg e d th a t A lco rn C o u n tyn e g lig e n tly

m a in tain e d th e c ro ss in g b yf a ili n g to p ro v id e a d e q u a te a c tiv e w a rn in g d e v ice s; f a ili n g to p r o p e r l ym a i n t a i n t h e p a s s i v e w a r n i n g d e v i c e s ; a n d f a i l i n g t o r e m e d yt h e o v e r g r o wn
con dit i on s w hich l i m i t ed vi si bil i t yatt he g rade cross i ng . T he b asi s of t he co m plai nt agai nst

### 3

N or fol k Sout hern w as al s o negl i gentm ai nt enanc e fort he i nadequa t e s i gnal and the

o v e rg ro w n c o n d iti o n s; R ich a rd s o n a ls o a ss e rte d th a t N o rf o lk S o u th e rn w a s n e g lig e n t in fai l i ng t o s ound t he horn and t o pr oper l yoper at e the tr ai n due t o t he tr ai n’ s exce s s i ve s peed ata grade crossi ng kn ow n to be da ng erous. ¶ 3
. B e c a u se th e p a ss iv e d e v ice s h a d b e e n in sta lled w ith f e d e ra l f u n d s, A lco rn C o u n ty pr evai l ed o n it s m o ti on fors um m aryj udgm enton t he gr ound t hatfede r al r egul at i ons pr eempt ed s t at e t or t l aw . T he t r i al cour t found R i char ds on’ s cl ai m t hatt he s i gnal i zat i on w as i nadequa t e w as pr eempt ed by t he Feder al R ai l r oad Safety A ct , and thatA l corn C ount yhad

n o d u ty to m a in ta in th e o b s tr u c te d ri g h t- o f -w a ya s it w a s p ri v a te ly o w n e d
. ¶4. A f

ter th e trial cou rt grant ed A l corn C ou nty ’s m oti on fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, R icha rdso n fil ed a se co n d am en d ed co m p lai n t aga inst N o rfo lk S o u thern
. N o rfo lk S o u thern fil ed a m o ti o n fo r pa rt ial su m m aryjud g m en t, all eg ing , inter ali a, th e sa m e g rou n d s as A lcorn C o u n ty– that fe d era l l aw p ree m p ted stat e tort law
. T h e tri al co u rtg ran ted p arti al su m m ary j udgm enton t he i s s ue of a dequat e si gnal i zat i on, fi ndi ng t he i s s ue of t he ade quacyof cr os s i ng
w arni ng devi ces w as deemed t o be pr eempt ed byfede r al l aw ; how ever , t he tr i al cour tfound its ru lin g o n th is iss u e w o u ld n o t p re c lu d e R ich a rd so n “ f ro m c o n ten d in g a t trial th a t [ N o rf o lk Sout hern] negl i gent l yfai l ed t o pr oper l ym ai nt ai n t he pas s i ve w arni ng devi ces att hatl ocat i on i n good condi t i on and fa i l ed t o pr oper l y m ai nt ai n t he ri ght

- of- w ay bel ongi ng t o t he r ai l r oad att he s cene . ” T he t r i al cour t addi t i onal l y found t he exce s s i ve s peed c l ai m w as pr eempt ed by f e d e ra l law . B yd e n y in g , in p a rt, N o rf o lk S o u th e rn ’s m o tio n f o r pa rtial s u m m a ryju d g m e n t,

### 4

the t ri al co u rt p erm itted R icha rdso n to p roc ee d to tr ial o n h er c lai m s tha t N o rfo lk S o u thern ( 1) fai l ed t o pr oper l ym ai nt ai n t he pass i ve w arni ng devi ces at t he sce ne i n good condi t i on;
a n d , (2 ) f

a ile d to p ro p e rl ym a in ta in th e ra ilr o a d ri g h t- o f -w a ya t th e s c e n e . ¶5. In re sp o n se t o R i chardson ’s effo rt s t o int roduce cert ai n ev i den ce at t ri al , N orf o lk S o u th e r n f

il e d a p re -tria l m o tio n in lim in e to e x c lu d e e v id e n c e o f tw o o th e r a c c id e n ts i nvol vi ng M at t hew B r adl ey and W endy M cC l ur e. T he t r i al cour tgr ant ed thi s m ot i on, t hus

e x c lu d in g e v id e n c e o f

th e s e o th e r a c c id e n ts
. ¶6. A tt r i al , R i char ds on s ubm i t t ed propos ed j ur yi ns t ruct i ons P- 12 and P- 22, r egar di ng t he dut i es of a mot or i s tata gr ade cr os s i ng; how ever , t he tr i al cour tr efus ed them and i ns t ead g a v e ju ryin stru c tio n s C -2 0 a n d C -2 1 . B e c a u se N o rf o lk S o u th e rn e m p lo y e e s n e v e r p ro p e rly

r ecove r ed the eve ntr ecor derdat a, R i char ds on al s o s u b m i t t ed j ur yi ns t ruct i on P- 16, r egar di ng sp o liatio n o f

e v id e n c e , b u t th e tr ial c o u rt re f u se d to g iv e th a t in stru c tio n . O n a p p e a l, R i char ds on cl ai m s t hatt he t r i al cour t err ed i n ( 1) gr ant i ng par t i al s um m aryj udgm enton t he fede r al pr eempt i on i s s ue; ( 2) excl udi ng evi dence of pr i oracc i dent s att he s ame r ai l r oad

cr os s i ng; and, ( 3) r efus i ng t hr ee j ur yi ns t ruct i ons w hi ch s he s ubm i t t ed. DI S CU S S I ON I . F ED ER AL P RE EM P TI ON OF S TA TE LA W ¶ 7
. R i c h a r d s o n p u r s u e d t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t N o r f o l k S o u t h e r n o n t o r t t h e o r i e s o f l i a b i l i t y. N o rfo lk S o u thern ’s d ef en se inclu d ed an asse rt ion that fe d era l l aw p ree m p ted R icha rdso n ’s

c la im
.

### 5

¶ 8
. W e re v ie w d e n o v o a g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t u n d e r M is s . R . C iv . P . 5 6
. L ef f ler
v. S h arp , 891 So. 2d 152, 156 ( M i s s . 2004)
. A m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ents houl d be gr ant ed onl yw hen no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t s , and the movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j u d g m en t a s a mat t erof l aw . M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 56( c)
. T he movant has t he bur den of

s how i ng t hatno genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac texi s t s , gi vi ng the non- m ovantt he bene fi tof th e d o u b t a s to th e e x is te n c e o f a n yg e n u in e is s u e s o f

m a te ri a l f

a c ts
. McC ullough v. C ook , 6 7 9 S o .2 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ). H o w e v e r, in R i chm ond v. B enchm ar k Constr. Cor p. , 692 So. 2d 60, 62 ( M i s s . 1997) , t hi s C our tal s o s ai d: “[t ] he part yoppos i n g the m o ti on m us tbe di l i gent
. ” M er e r el i ance on t he al l egat i ons ordeni al s i n t he p lead ing s i s nots uffi ci ent ; but i ns t ead, t he part yoppos i ng t he mot i on i s r equi r ed t o s et fo rt h s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng t hat g e n u in e is s u e s f

o r t ri a l d o e x is t. I

d. ¶9. T his C ou rtm ustal so view t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh t m ost favo rabl e t o the p arty against

w h o m th e m o tio n h a s b e e n m a d e . L ef f ler , 8 9 1 S o . 2 d at 1 5 6
. A m o tio n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t is n o t a s u b s titu te f o r a tr ia l o f

d is p u te d f

a c t is s u e s . O w ens Cor ning v. R . J. R eynolds T

obacco Co. , 8 6 8 S o . 2 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). O n a R u le 56 m o ti o n , this C o u rt

m u s t o n ly d e te rm in e if th e re a re is s u e s to b e tr ie d ; w e n e e d n o t a c tu a lly try th o s e is s u e s . I d. T h e m ere p rese n ce o f f ac t i ssu e s in th e re c o rd d o es n o t entit le a p artyto av o id su m m ary ju d g m e n t p e r s e . I

d. “‘ T he cour t m us t be convi nced thatt he fa ctual i s s ue i s a mat er i al one, one thatm at t er s i n an out come det er m i nat i ve s ens e . . . t he exi s t ence of a hundr ed cont es t ed i s s ues of fa ctw i l l nott hw ar ts um m ary j udgm ent w her e t her e i s no genui ne di s put e r egar di ng

### 6

t he mat er i al issue s o f fac t
. ’ ” L ef f ler , 891 So. 2d at156 ( quot i ng Sim m ons v. T homps on Mach
. o f Mis s ., I

n c ., 631 So.2d 7 9 8 , 801 ( M i s s . 1994) ( ci t i ng S h a w v . B u rc h fie ld , 481 S o .2 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 )); see al so , B r ow n v. Cr edit

Center , I nc. , 44 4 S o. 2d 35 8 (M i ss. 1 9 8 3 ). F in a lly, iss u e s o f la w a re s u b

je c t to d e n o v o re v ie w b yth is C o u rt
. A n dru s v . E lli s , 8 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶10. T he C ode of Fede r al R egul at i ons r equi r es “ade quat e w arni ng devi ces ” be i ns t al l ed on anyr ai l r oad- hi ghw aygr ade c r os s i ng t hat i s par t of a fede r al

- ai d hi ghw ay pr oj ectbefor e the

cr os s i ng i s opened. 23 C
. F. R
. § 646. 214( b) ( 2) ( 2005)
. W her e fe der al

- ai d funds w er e us ed fori ns t al l at i on of t he w arni ng devi ces , “ade quat e w arni ng d ev ices” i ncl ude ac t i ve s i gnal devi ces , or“aut om at i c gat es w i t h fl as hi ng l i ghts i gnal s , ” butonl yw hen one of s i x condi t i ons exi s t s . 23 C
. F. R
. § 646. 214( b) ( 3)
. W hen thos e s i x condi t i ons do notexi s t , t h e Feder al H igh w ayA d m inistrati o n m u st ap p rov e the w arn ing d ev ice. 23 C
. F
. R
. § 6 4 6
. 2 1 4 (b)(4 ). ¶11. R ecogni zi ng t hat fede r al l aw pr eempt s a st at e l aw w hen t he tw o are in confl i ct , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tfound i n C SX T r anspor tati on, I

nc. v. E as ter w ood , 50 7 U. S. 658, 670, 113 S. C t
. 1732, 1740- 41, 123 L
. E d. 2d 387 ( 1993) , t hatw hen 23 C
. F. R
. §§ 646. 214( b) ( 3) and ( 4) ar e appl i cabl e, t hes e fede r al r egul at i ons pr eempt s t at e t or t l aw . I n t hat

w r ongful death cas e, w hi ch al s o ar os e outof a tr ai n- aut om obi l e col l i s i on, t he C our tfound th e re g u latio n s d id n o t ap p lyb e c a u se th e p a rtyra isin g th e d e f e n se f a iled to e s ta b li s h th e ir appl i cabi l i t y . T he E as ter w ood Co u r th e l d t h e f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i on mu s t“ c o v e r ” t h e s a me
s u b je c t m a tte r a n d n o t m e re ly to u c h u p o n it o r r e la te to it. I d at664.

### 7

¶12. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Court l at er , i n a cas e w i t h fac t s s i m i l art o E as ter w ood and t hi s cas e, hel d t he Feder al R ai l w aySafetyA ct( FR SA ) , i n conj unct i on w i t h §§ 646. 214( b) ( 3)

a n d (4 ), p re e m p ts s tate to rt law a c tio n s a g a in st a ra ilw a yc o m p a n yf o r f a ili n g to m a in tain adequa t e w arni ng devi ces atcr os s i ngs w her e fe der al funds w er e us ed fori ns t al l at i on of t he

w a rn in g d e v ic e s . N

o rfo lk S o u th e rn R a ilw a y Co . v. S h a n k lin , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 4 4 , 3 4 7 , 1 2 0 S .C t. 1467, 1471, 146 L
. E d. 2d 374 ( 2000)
. T he C our t al s o hel d t hat , “Sect i ons 646. 214( b) ( 3) and ( 4) ‘ covert he s ubj ectm at t er ’ of t he ade quacyof w arni ng devi ces install ed w ith t he par t i ci pat i on of fe der al funds
. ” I d . at 358. T he C our tl i kew i s e found the FR SA pr eempt ed t he s t at e t or tcl ai m t hatt he adva nce w arni ng s i gns and r efl ect or i zed cr os s bucks i ns t al l ed at th e g ra d e c ro s s in g in th a t c a s e w e re in a d e q u a te
. I d. B eca us e t he [Tennes s ee D epart m ent of T r ans por t at i on] us ed fede r al funds for t he s i gns ’ i ns t al l at i on, §§ 646. 214 (b)(3 ) and ( 4) governed the s el ect i on and i ns t al l at i on of t he devi ces . A nd beca use the T D O T det er m i ned thatw arni ng d e v ice s o th e r th a n a u to m a tic g a tes a n d f las h in g lig h ts w e re a p p r o p r iate , it s d ec isi o n w as su b

ject t o the ap p rov al of

the [ F ed era l H igh w ayA d m inistrati o n ]. S ee § 6 4 6
. 2 1 4 (b)(4 ). O n ce the F H W A ap p rov ed the project an d the s ign s w ere i ns t al l ed us i ng fede r al funds , t he fe der al s t and ard foradequa cydi s pl ace d T ennes s ee s t atut or yand comm on l aw addr es s i n g th e s a me s u b j e c t , t her ebypr ee m p tin g re s p o n d e n t’ s c la im
. I d . at358- 359. ¶1 3
. R icha rdso n arg u es th at a p ri o r de cisi o n o f th is C o u rt d ispe ls N o rfo lk S o u thern ’s defe ns e. I n Kan s a s Ci t y So ut he r n Ry . Co. , I

nc. v. Johnson , 79 8 S o. 2d 37 4, 37 9 (M i ss. 2001) , w e s t at ed: “[b] efor e fede r al l aw w i l l pr eempt a s t at e l aw ther e m us t be pr oof t hat f e d e ra l-a id f

u n d s w e re u se d in th e in sta llatio n o f d e v ice s in c lu d in g a u to m a tic g a tes w ith

### 8

fl as hi ng l i ghts i gnal s w hen on e or more of s ever al condi t i ons exi s t
. ” Thatm uch i s t rue - p roo f i s r equi r ed. H ow ever , R i char ds on as s er t s t he rul e i n Jo hns on i s t h a t t wo fa ct ual el em ents are needed for federal preem pti on – fed eral app roval and fede ral fun ding. A cl ose
rea di ng of Jo hns on r evea l s i tdoes nots t and forthi s pr opos i t i on. I n Jo hns on, this C o u rt found no fede r al pr eempt i on beca us e of t he l ack of pr oof af t era “c ar eful exami nat i on of t he

r ecor d. ” I

d . at379. I n Johnson , w e r ei t er at ed that“ther e m us t be m or e t han the exi s t ence of a pl an i n t hatt he pl an mustal s o have be en i m pl ement ed. ” I d . (ci t i ng P ears on v. Colum bus & G r eenvil

le R ailw ay Co. , 7 3 7 S o . 2 d 3 9 0 , 3 9 6 (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 )). In to d ay ’s

ca s e , Nor f

o l k So u t h e r n r e l i e d o n d o c u me n t s wi t h a f e d e r a l a i d a p p r o v a l num ber and affidavi t s of fo rm er M i ssi ssi pp i D epart m ent of T ransport at i on E m ploy ee S t eph en E dw ards, t o pr ove fe der al funds w er e us ed fori ns t al l at i on of t he w arni ng devi ces . R i char ds on cal l ed in to q u e stio n th e a u th e n ti c it y o f th e d o c u m e n t w ith th e f e d e ra l-a id f

u n d in g n u m b e r o n it, al l egi ng N or fol k Sout hern had al t er ed i t , changi ng a 5 t o a 6, buts he neve rexpl ai ned w hy t hatw oul d m ean the documentw as no l ongerpr oof of f eder al

- ai d fundi ng. ¶14. Fi nal l y , R icha rdso n claim s t hatw her e ther e i s no r emedy , t her e i s a pr es um pt i on agai ns t fede r al pr eempt i on, r el y i ng on Sil kw ood v. K

er r -McG ee Corp. , 464 U
. S. 238, 251, 1 0 4 S .C t. 6 1 5 , 6 2 3 , 7 8 L .E d .2 d 4 4 3 (1 9 8 4 ). Sil kw ood deal t w i t h t he pre empt i on of puni t i ve damages and, m or e s peci fica ll y , ad dr es s ed congr es s i onal i nt entw hen ther e i s a l ack of a f eder alr emedy , notm er el yt he l ack of anyr emedy
. T he U
. S. Supr eme C our ti n E as ter w ood found fe der al pr eempt i on w oul d notl i e unl es s i tw as t he cl ear an d m ani fes tpurpos e of

### 9

C ongr es s t o do s o, butal s o not ed i n i t s s t atut or y cons t ruct i on anal y s i s t hatt he pl ai n w or di ng of t he r egul at i on i s t he s t ar t i ng poi ntt o fi n d the congr es s i onal i nt entbehi nd t he rul e. E as tw ood , 507 U
. S. at664. I n E as ter w ood , t he Supr eme C our ts t at ed: I n t he i nt er es tof avoi di ng uni nt ended e ncr oach m ent on t he author i t yof t he St at es , how ever , a courti nt erpr et i ng a fe der al s tat u te per t ai ni ng t o a s ubj ect t radi t i on al l ygo verned byst at e l aw w i l l be rel uctant t o find p re- em pti on . T hu s, pr e- empt i on w i l l no t li e u n le s s i ti s "the cl earand mani fes tpurpos e of C on gress . " R i ce v. S an ta F e E levator Corp ., 331 U
. S. 218, 230, 67 S. C t
. 1146, 1152, 91 L
. E d. 1447 ( 1947)
. E vi dence of pr e- empt i ve purpos e i s s oughti n t he te x t a n d s tr u c tu re o f

th e s ta tu te a t is s u e . Shaw v. D e lta Ai rLine s, I nc ., 463 U .S . 8 5 , 9 5 , 1 0 3 S .C t. 28 9 0 , 2 8 9 8 , 7 7 L .E d .2 d 4 9 0 (1 9 8 3 ). If th e sta tu te con t ai ns an ex press pre- em pti on cl ause, t he t ask of st atutor y con struct i on m ust in th e f irst in sta n c e f

o c u s o n th e p lain w o rd in g o f th e c lau se , w h ich n e c e ss a rily c o n tain s th e b e st e v id e n c e o f C o n g re ss ' p re -e m p tiv e in ten t. I d . at663- 64. L ooki ng t o t he t extof 23 C
. F
. R
. §§ 646. 214( b) ( 3) & ( 4) , t he E as ter w ood C o u rt f o u n d th o s e p ro v is io n s p re e m p te d s ta te to rt la w w h e n th e yw e re a p p lic a b le
. I d. at669. ¶15. For thes e rea sons, w e ar e fi r m l y convi nced t he t r i al cour t corr ect l y appl i ed fe der al pr eempt i on l aw t o R i char ds on’ s cl ai m s of i nadequa t e s i gnal i zat i on. W e thus fi nd t hi s i s s ue to b e w ith o u t m e rit. I I . ADM I S S I BI LI TY OF PRI OR ACC I DENTS ¶16. R i char ds on as s er ts the tr ial courterr ed i n excl udi ng evi dence att r i al of t w o ot her accid en ts a t thi s s ame gr ade c r os s i ng. T he s t andar d of r evi ew fort he admi s s i on or
s u p p r e s s io n o f

e v id e n c e in M is s is s ip p i is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Mis s . Tr a ns p . Com m ’ n v . McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31, 34 ( M i s s . 2003)
. U s i ng an abuse of di s cr et i on s t andar d, t he tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on w i l l s t and unl es s w e fi nd t he j udge’ s exer cise o f s uch di s cr et i on w as

### 10

a rb itr a ry a n d c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . I d . A t r i al j udge’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctm us tbe mani fes t l yw r ong
a n d a g a i n s tt h e o v e r wh e l mi n g we i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e f o r a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r tt o d i s tu rb t h e m. Miss . D e p t. of T ra n sp . v. Ca rg ile , 847 So. 2d 258, 263 ( M i s s . 2003)
. T he rul e has been l ong
es t abl i s hed i n M i s s i s s i ppi t hatevi dence of pr i oracc i dent s m ay be i nt r oduced at t r i al t o s how t w o t hi ngs : ( 1) t he exi s t ence of a da nger ous condi t i on; and, ( 2) t he def endant ’ s not i ce or k n o w le d g e o f

s u c h d a n g e ro u s c o n d itio n . Y os te v. W al -Mar t Stor es, I

nc. , 822 So. 2d 935, 936 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ); s ee al

s o M iss
. R
. E v id
. 4 0 4 (b ). H o w e v e r, e v id e n c e o f p rio r a c c id e n ts w ill o n ly b e a d m itte d u p o n a s h o w in g o f s u b s ta n tia l s im ila ri ty o f c o n d itio n s . Y

o ste , 822 So. 2d at936. T hi s C our thas m ade i tcl eart hat w hen evi dence of ot her acc i dent s i s i nt r oduced, i tm aynot b e to o re m o te in tim e f

ro m th e a c c id e n t in is s u e . I l linois Cent

. R . R . v. W

il li am s , 135 So. 2d 831, 839 ( M i s s . 1961)
. W e found i n W i lli am s t hat“otheracc i dent ” evi dence occurr i ng
w i t hi n ni ne mont hs of t he s ubj ect of t he di s put e w as not t oo r emot e i n t i m e for t he evi dence to b e in a d m is s ib le
. I

d. T hi s C our thas al s o found “other acc i dent ” evi dence occurr i ng over tim e p e ri o d s le s s th a n o n e y e a r c lo s e e n o u g h in tim e to b e a d m is s ib le
. B ar r ett v. P ar ker , 757 S o .2 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 -8 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ) (o n e y e a r); S. H . Kre s s & Co. v . Markl

ine , 77 So. 2d 858, 864 (M is s . 1 9 1 8 ) ( tw o y e a rs ). ¶17. T ur ni ng t o t hi s cas e, R i char ds on at t empt ed t o i nt r oduce evi dence of a pr i oracc i dent

w hi ch occ ur r ed att hi s s ame gr ade c r os s i ng on D ec em b er12, 1985. T hi s pr i oracc i dent i nvol v i n g M a t t h e w Br a d l e y o c c u r r e d o v e r t h i r t e e n y e a r s p r i o r t o M i k i e ’ s a c c i d e n t on M ay 10, 1999. T he other acc i dent , i nvol vi ng W endy M cC l ur e, occurr ed i n J anuary , 2003, over

### 11

th re e a n d o n e -h a lf

y e a rs a f

te r M ik ie ’ s a c c id e n t. R ich a rd so n a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se b o th M c C lu re a n d B ra d ley w e re tra v e li n g w e st a c ro ss th e sa m e g ra d e c ro ss in g w h e n a N o rf o lk Sout hern t r ai n t r avel i ng nor t h col l i ded w i t h t hei rcar s , t he ac ci dent s ar e s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar and thus admi s s i bl e. W e do not agr ee. T hi s C our t has never found a per i od of t i m e such a s
overt hi r t een-y ear s cl os e enough i n t i m e t o be admi s s i bl e. O ne ac ci dentoccurr i ng att he

s ame l ocat i on overt hi r t een y ear s befor e M i ki e’ s acc i dentdoes notnece s s ar i l ys how an exi s t ence of a da nger ous condi t i on o r th at th e defenda nthad not i ce orknow l edge of a danger ous condi t i on. A l s o, condi t i ons at t he s cene obvi ous l y change over s uch a l ong per i od

o f tim e . L ik e w ise , an a c c id e n t o c c u rrin g a t th e sa m e lo c a tio n m o re th a n th re e a n d o n e -h a lf y ear s aft erM i ki e’ s acc i dentcoul d not pos s i bl y be re l evantt o pr ove thata y et - t o- happen 2003

acc i dentputN or fol k Sout hern on noti ce in 1 9 9 9 t hata dange r ous condi t i on exi s t ed att he g ra d e c ro ss in g a t th e tim e o f M ik ie’ s a c c id e n t. ¶ 1 8
. F o r th e se re a so n s, w e f in d th e trial c o u rt d id n o t a b u se its d isc re tio n in e x c lu d in g th is “otheracc i dent ” evi dence
. I n excl udi ng t hi s evi dence , t he tr i al cour t ’ s act i on w as nei t her

arbi t r ary , norcl ear l y err oneous , norw as i tm ani fes t l yw r ong and aga i ns tt he overw hel m i ng
w e ig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e . T h is iss u e is th u s w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . RE F US ED J URY I NS TR UCT I ONS ¶19
. W hen w e revi ew a cl ai m of tr i al cou rterr or i n g rant i ng or den y i ng j uryi nst ruct i on s,
w e a re re q u ir e d to re a d a n d c o n s id e r a ll o f th e ju ry in s tr u c tio n s to g e th e r a s a w h o le
. B u rr
v. Mis s is s i

ppiB aptis t

Medi cal Center , 909 So. 2d 721, 726 ( M i s s . 2005)
. N o instructi on

### 12

s houl d be t aken o u t o f co n textorr ead a l one i n i s ol at i on. I d. “[T ]he t ri al j ud ge m ayal so p ro p e rlyre f

u se th e in stru c tio n s if

h e f in d s th e m to in c o rre c tlysta te th e law o r to re p e a t a t heoryfai r l ycover ed i n anot heri ns t ruct i on or t o be w i t houtpr operfoundat i on i n t he evi dence of t he ca s e. ” I

d . W hen r eadi ng t he i ns t ruct i ons as a w hol e, t hi s C ou rt m u st de ter m i ne
w hethert he j ur yw as pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed. B u r to n e x re l. B ra d

fo rdv . B a rn e tt , 615 So. 2d 580, 583 ( M i s s . 1993)
. T hi s pr opos i t i on s t ands even i f one s peci fi c i ns t ruct i on m aybe

a rg u a b ly f

a u lty . “D e f

e c ts in sp e c if

ic in stru c tio n s d o n o t re q u ire re v e rsa l ‘w h e re a ll instruction s take n as a w h o le fa ir ly -alth o u g h n o t perf ec tl y- an n o u n ce the a p p li ca b le prim ary
rul es of l aw . ’ ” I

d. (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). O n th e o th e r h a n d , w e a re re q u ire d to f in d re v e rsib le

e rro r if th e in stru c tio n s in a n yg iv e n c a se , w h e n c o n sid e re d to g e th e r as a w h o le, d o n o t f a irly

a n d a d e q u a t e l y i n s t ru c tt h e j u r y. A . I N ST R U C T I O N S P - 12 A N D P - 22 ¶20. R i char ds on s ubm i t t ed t w o pr opos ed j ur y i ns t ruct i ons , num ber s P- 12 and P- 22, t o be

c o n s id e re d b yth e tr ia l c o u rt
. ¶21. I ns t ruct i on P- 12 s t at ed: T h is C o u rt in stru c ts y o u th a t w h e n e v e r a n yp e rso n d ri v in g a v e h icle a p p ro a c h e s a ra ilro a d g r a d e c ro ss in g w h e n a n a p p ro a c h in g ra ilro a d tra in is pl ai nl y vi s i bl e and i n haza r dous pr oxi m i t y t o s uch cr os s i ng t he dr i verof s uch vehi cl e has a dutyt o s t op notl es s t han 15 fe etfr om t he n ea rest r ai l of s uch r a i l r o a d , a n d n o tt o p r o c e e d u n t i l h e c a n d o s o s a f e l y. I f y ou fi nd t hatM i ki e R obbi ns w as al s o negl i gent and t hathi s negl i gence w as a c o n trib u tin g p ro x im a te c a u se o f th e M a y1 0 , 1 9 9 9 c o ll is io n a t th e C o u n ty R oad 715 r ai l r oad cr os s i ng t hen y ou s hal l r educe t he amount of t he ver di ctfor t he Pl ai nt i ff a ccor di ng t o t he M i s s i s s i ppi l aw of compar at i ve negl i gence .

### 13

¶22. I ns t ruct i on P- 22 s t at ed: In t he tri al of al l act i on s t o r ecov er personal i njur y or p ro p e rty dam ages, su sta in e d b y a n y d riv e r o f su c h v e h icle s f o r c o lli sio n o f sa id v e h icle a n d tra in i n w hi ch ac t i on i tm ayappea rt hatt he sai d dr i ver m ay have vi ol at ed any of t he pr ovi s i ons her eof, t he ques t i on of w het h er o r nott he s ai d vi ol at i on w as t he so le o r p ro x im a te c a u se o f th e a c c id e n t an d in

ju r y s h a ll b e f

o r th e ju ryto deci de. T he vi ol at i on of t hi s s ect i on s hal l notof i t s el f def eatr ecove r yand the ques t i on of negl i gence ort he vi ol at i on afor es ai d s hal l be l eftt o t he j ur y ; and th e c o m p a ra tiv e n e g lig e n c e sta tu tes a n d p rim a f a c ie sta tu te o f

th is s tate sh a ll appl yi n t hes e ca s es as i n ot hercas es of negl i gence . ¶23. A l t h o u g h the tr ial co u rt ref us ed thes e tw o i ns t ruct i ons , t he tr i al cour tdi d gi ve i ns t ruct i ons C
- 20 and C

- 21. I ns t ruct i on C
- 20 s t at ed: T he l aw r equi r es t hat w hen anyper s on dr i vi ng a vehi cl e appr oache s a r ai l r oad gr ade c r os s i ng, he s hal l s t op w i t hi n fi ft y( 50) fee tbutnotl es s t han fi ft een ( 15) fee tfr om t he nea r es tr ai l of s uch rai lr o ad , and shal l notpr ocee d unt i l he ca n do so safel y , un der t he fo l l ow i ng ci rcum st ances: ( 1) W hen ther e i s r ai l r oad tr ai n ( s i c) ap p roa chi ng w i t hi n appr oxi m at el yni ne h u n d re d (9 0 0 ) f

e e t o f th e h ig h w a y c ro ss in g e m its a sig n a l in a c c o rd a n c e w ith t he l aw , and s uch r ai l r oad t r ai n, by r eas on of i t s s peed or nearn ess to s uch cr os s i ng, i s an i m m edi at e haz ar d; ( 2) A n appr oachi ng r ai lr o ad t r ai n i s pl ai nl yvi s i bl e and i s i n haza r dous p ro x im ity to s u c h c ro s s in g . ¶24. I ns t ruct i on C
- 21 s t at ed: T h e law re q u ire s th a t a t an yra ilro a d g ra d e c ro ss in g p ro v id e d w ith v isib le rail roa d cross buck s i gns , t he dr i verof a ve hi cl e s hal l , i n obedi ence t o s uch ra ilro a d c ro ss b u c k sig n , y ield th e rig h t-o f -w a y a n d slo w to a sp e e d re a so n a b le f o r th e e x istin g c o n d iti o n s, a n d sh a ll sto p if re q u ire d f

o r sa f e tya t a c lea rly m ark ed st op l i ne, ori f no s t op l i ne, w i t hi n fi ft y( 50) fee t , butnotl es s t han fi ft een ( 15) fee t , fr om t he nea r es tr ai l of t he rai lr o ad , an d s hal l notpr ocee d u n til h e c a n d o s o s a f

e ly.This statute has since been am ended , inter alia, by adding“or” aftert he s emicolon at the end of 2 subsec tions (a), (b ), and (c). 

### 14 ¶ 2 5
. W hi l e Ri c h a r d s o n ’ s p r o p o s e d i n s t ru c t i o n P- 1 2 mi r r o r e d M i s s . Cod e Ann
. § 77- 9- 249( 1) ( d) , i t w as an i ncompl et e s t at ement of t he l aw , confus i ng, and mi s l eadi ng. I n appl y i ng th is in stru c tio n , the ju ryw o u ld h a v e b e e n re q u ire d to f in d th a t M ik ie h a d a sta tu to ryd u tyto
s t op att he cr os s i ng onl yi f t he t r ai n w as pl ai n ly v isi b le a n d i n haza r dous pr oxi m i t yt o t he

cr os s i ng. C o n v er s el y , acc or di ng t o i ns t ruct i on P- 12, i f the j ur yfound t he tr ai n w as not pl ai nl yvi s i bl e, M i ki e w as notundera s t atut or ydut yt o s t op at th e cro s s i ng. T hi s i s an i ncorr ectand i ncompl et e st at ement of t he l aw . M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 77- 9- 249( 1) ( R ev. 20 01 ) s t at es: ( 1) W heneve ranyper s on dr i vi ng a vehi cle ap p roac hes a r ai l r oad gr ade cr os s ing u nderanyof t he ci r cumst ance s s t at ed i n t hi s s ect i on, t he dr i verof s uch vehi cl e s hal l s t op w i t hi n fi ft y ( 50) fee t but not l es s t han fi ft een ( 15) fee t from t he n eares trai l of suc h rai l road, and shal l no tproceed un t i l he can do so s afe l y . T he for egoi ng r equi r ement s s hal l appl yw hen: ( a) A cl ear l yvi s i bl e elect r i c orm echa ni cal s i gnal devi ce gi ves w a rn in g o f

th e im m e d iate a p p ro a c h o f a ra ilro a d tra in ; ( b) A cr os s i ng gat e i s l ow er ed orw hen a human fl agman gi ves orcont i nues t o gi ve a s i gnal of t he appr oach o r pass age of a ra ilro a d tra in ; ( c) A r ai l r oad tr ai n appr oac hi ng w i t hi n appr oxi m at el yni ne h u n d re d (9 0 0 ) f

e e t o f th e h ig h w a yc ro ss in g e m its a sig n a l in acc or dance w i t h S ec ti on 77- 9- 225, and s uch r ai l r oad tr ai n, by re a so n o f its sp e e d o r n e a rn e ss to su c h c ro ss in g , is a n im m e d iate h a z a rd ; (d ) A n a p p ro a c h in g r a ilro a d tra in is p lain lyv isib le a n d is in haza r dous pr oxi m i t yt o s uch cr os s i ng. 2

### 15

¶26. I n A lab a m a G rea t S o u the rn R . C o . v. L ee, 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 2 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 2 ) , we addr es s ed the s t atut e as i texi s t ed att he t i m e of M i ki e’ s acc i dentand s t at ed thatSect i on 77- 9- 249 i m pos ed upon a dr i verappr oachi ng a gr ade cr os s i ng t he dut y t o s t op “w hen one of t he

enumer at ed condi t i ons i s m et
. ” I d . at1237 ( ci t i ng Mitc h a m v . I l lin o is Ce n t

. Gul f R. R. , 515 So. 2d 852, 854 ( M i s s . 1987) )
. T her efor e, t he tr i al cour tcorr ect l yr efus ed i ns t ruct i on P- 12 and corr ect l ygave the court ’ s i ns t ruct i on C
- 20, w hi ch i nfor m ed the j ur yt hata dr i ver , s uch

a s M ik ie, h a d a sta tu to ryd u tyto sto p , n o t o n ly if a tr a in w a s p lain lyv isib le a n d w a s in h a z a rd o u s p ro x im ityto th e c ro ss in g , b u t als o , if a tra in w a s a p p ro a c h in g w ith in

a p p ro x im a telyn in e -h u n d re d f e e t o f th e c ro ss in g w h ile em itt in g a sig n a l p u rsu a n t to sta tu te
a n d th a t th e tra in , d u e to its sp e e d o r c lo se p ro x im ityto th e c ro ss in g , w a s a n im m e d iate h a z a rd
. ¶27. T he t r i al cour t w as equal l y corr ect i n gi vi ng i ns t ruct i on C
- 21 w hi ch m er el yi nfor m ed th e ju r y t h a t a d riv e r, su c h a s M ik ie, w a s re q u ire d to slo w to a re a so n a b le s p e e d in appro ac h ing a gr ade c r os s i ng w i t h r ai l r oad cr os s buck s i gns , and t o s t op, i f nec es s aryfor saf etyp u rpo ses, an d to the n p roc ee d o n lyu p o n b eing ab le t o d o so saf e ly
. T h e re co rd

s u p p o rt e d th e g iv in g o f th is in s tr u c tio n , w h ic h w a s a c o rr e c t s ta te m e n t o f th e la w . See M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 7 7 -9 -2 4 9 (4 ). ¶28. R i char ds on al s o s ubm i t t ed i ns t ruct i on P- 22, w hi ch w as bas i cal l ya verbat i m r eci t at i on of M i ss. C od e A nn . S ect i on 77 -9- 24 9(3). T his st atute s t at es: (3) In th e trial of all act i on s t o recov er per sonal i njur yor propert ydam ages, su sta in e d b ya n yd riv e r of su c h v e h icle s f o r c o lli sio n o f

sa id v e h icle a n d tra in

### 16

i n w hi ch ac t i on i tm ayappea r t hat t he sai d dr i ver m ay have vi ol at ed anyof t he pr ovi s i ons her eof, t he ques t i on of w hetherornott he s ai d v iolati on w as t he so le o r a p p r o x im a te c a u se o f th e a c c id e n t an d in

ju rysh a ll b e f

o r th e ju ryto det er m i ne. T he vi ol at i on of t hi s s ect i on s hal l notof i t s el f def eatr ecove r y , and t h e q u e s t i o n o f

n e g l i g e n c e o rt h e v i o l a t i o n a f o r e s a i d s h a l l b e l e f

tt o t h e j u r y; a n d th e c o m p a ra tiv e n e g lig e n c e sta tu tes a n d p rim a f a c ie s tatu te o f

th is s tate s hal l appl yi n t hes e ca s es as i n ot hercas es of negl i gence . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 7 -9-2 4 9 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 1 ). In re f u sin g th is in stru c tio n , the trial c o u rt q u it e a p p ro p ria telyf o u n d , inte r a lia, th a t th is i ns t ruct i on i ncl uded “a s ect i on out of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode w hi ch I cons i der t o be a di r ect i ve to th e c o u rt in th e trial o f th e c a se a n d n o t th e su b je c t o f a n in stru c tio n to th e ju ry .” T h is sta tu te p ro v id e s, in ter a lia, th a t ev e n if a d riv e r o f

a v e h icle w h ich c o lli d e s w ith a tra in vi ol at es any of t he st atut or y dut i es enumer at ed i n Sect i on 77- 9- 249, s uch s t atut or yvi ol at i ons
w i l l n o t , i n a n d o f t h e ms e l v e s , b a r r e c o v e r y , b u t i n s t e a d t h e j u r y ma y s t i l l d e t e r m i ne t he negl i gence i s s ues byut i l i zi ng ourfami l i arcompar at i ve negl i gence s t atut es . T he tr i al j udge

ens ur ed t he j ur y w oul d have t hi s oppor tuni t y w hen he gave a nd r ead t o t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on
num berC
- 23, w hi ch s t at ed: T hi s C our tinstruc t s t he j ur yt hat , i f y ou fi nd fr om a pr eponder ance of t he ev iden ce , that M ikie R o b b ins an d N o rfo lk S o u thern R ail w ayC o m p an yw ere b o th n e g lig e n t, an d th a t th e n e g lig e n c e o f b o th p a r ti e s w a s a p ro x im a te cont r i but i ng caus e of the M ay 10, 1999 col l i s i on, y ou m us tr etur n a ver di ctfor t he p l ai nti ff. H ow ever, y ou m ust reduce any aw ard that y ou w ou l d o t herw i se m a k e f o r th e P lain tiff

b yth e p e rc e n tag e o f

n e g lig e n c e th a t y o u a ttribu te to M i kie R ob bins. ¶ 2 9
. In su m , w h e n w e c o n sid e r all o f th e se in stru c tio n s as a w h o le, th e ju ry w a s p ro p e rly

a n d a d e q u a te ly in s tr u c te d o n a ll r e le v a n t p o in ts o f la w . T h u s , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.There is no evidence in the reco rd that the non-party , Union Pacific, m uch less, Norfo lk

So uthern, 3 w il lf ul ly r emov ed o r tam pe re d w ith th e ev ent r ec or de r.



### 17 B . I N ST R U C T I O N P - 16 ¶30. T he event r ecor deron t he l ead l ocomot i ve uni tof t he tr ai n i nvol ved i n t hi s acc i dent

w as neverr ecove r ed. Feder al l aw r equi r es anyt r ai n oper at i ng fas t er t han 30 m i l es perhour t o have a n i n- s er vi ce e vent r ecor der
. 49 C FR § 229. 135 ( 2005)
. T he r egul at i on r equi r es t he

r ai l r oad t o pr es er ve the dat a on the eve ntr ecor derand pr ovi de i tt o t he Feder al R ai l r oad A d m ini s t r at i on ort he N at i onal T r ans por t at i on SafetyB oar d i f an a cci dentoccur s . T he

r egul at i on al s o pr ovi des rul es for how t he t r ai n s houl d r es pond t o a def ect i ve r ecor derand h o w th e re c o r d e r m a yb e re m o v e d f ro m s e rv ic e . I

d. C i vi l penal t i es exi s tforany one w ho

w illf u lly re m o v e s o r t a m p e r s w ith a n e v e n t r e c o rd e r. I d. R i char ds on bel i eved thi s event 3

r ecor derw oul d cont ai n val uabl e evi dence conc e rn i n g whe th e rt he engi neerpr oper l ys ounded t h e h o r n f

o rt h e r e q u i r e d s t a tu t o r yd i s t a n c e . Th u s , Ri c h a r d s o n s u b mi t t e d a p r o p os ed sp o li ati o n o f ev iden ce jury instruction
. T h e tri al co u rtref u sed R icha rdso n ’s pro p o sed jury in stru c tio n n u m b e r P -1 6 , w h ich sta ted : T he C our ti ns t ruct s t he j ur yt hat , i f y ou fi nd fr om a pr eponder ance of t he e v id e n c e th a t: 1. E m pl oy ees of N or fol k Sout herR ai l w ayC om pany i nt ent i onal l yr emoved t he eve ntr ecor der o r “ b l ack box” fr om t he l ead l ocomot i ve af

t ert he M ay10, 1999 col l i s i on; or 2 . N o rf o lk S o u th e rn R a ilw a yC o m p a n yn e g li g e n tlyf a iled to s ecur e the dat a on t hatb lack b o x caus i ng i tt o be des t r oy ed, m isp lac e d , las t ( s ic) , o r o th e rw ise u n a v a ilab le f o r u se a t th is t r i al ; y ou s houl d pr es um e that s ai d bl ack box cont ai ned evi dence t h a tw a s u n f

a v o r a b l e t o N o r f

o l k S o u t h e rR a i l w a y C o m p a n y.

### 18

A s author i t y for t hi s i ns t ruct i on, R i char ds on r el i ed on Thom as v . I s le of Capr iCas ino , 781 So. 2d 125 ( M i s s . 2001) , and D eLau ghterv. L aw r ence Co. Hos pital , 60 1 S o. 2d 81 8 (M i ss. 1992)
. T hes e ca s es i ndeed s t at e t h at w h en ev i dence i s l os tordes t r oy ed bya part y , t hus h in d e rin g a n o th e r p a rty ’s a b il it y to p ro v e h is o r h e r c a se , a p re su m p tio n is ra ise d th a t th is

m i s s i ng i nfor m at i on w oul d have be en unfa vor abl e t o t he part yr es pons i bl e fort he l os s or d e s tr u c tio n o f

s u c h e v id e n c e . T

h om as , 7 8 1 S o .2 d a t 1 3 3 -3 4 ; D eLau ghter , 601 So. 2d at 821- 23. ¶31. H ow ever , a ca r eful r evi ew of T hom as and D eLau ghterrev ea ls th at thes e c ase s are cl ear l yfac tual l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om ourcas e t oday
. I n T hom as , a ca s i no patr on cl ai m ed t o have hi tt he “Cool M i l l i ons ” j ackpot on s l otm achi ne number 2947, notonce, butt w i ce, dur i ng t he cour s e of gambl i ng w hi ch cont i nued fr om l at e eveni ng i nt o t he ear l ym or ni ng hour s of t he next day
. A ccor di ng t o t he patr on, on eac h occa s i on, bel l s w er e ri ngi ng,
w hi s t l es w er e bl ow i ng, and l i ght s w er e fl as hi ng; and, l i kew i s e, o n eac h occa s i on, cas i no empl oy ees appr oache d the s l otm achi ne and c l ear ed the machi ne, cl ai m i ng t hatt he patr on h ad n o t hitthe jac k p o t. D u ri n g the t im e th at the ca sino p atron w as a p p ea li n g to circu itco u rt t he G ami ng C om m i s s i on’ s deni al of hi s c l a i m, the ca s i no r emoved sl otm achi ne number 2947 fr om t he fl oor , r epl ace d t he C entr al Pr oces s i ng U ni t( C PU ) fr om m achi ne number 2947, and pl ace d t he C PU i nt o anotherm achi ne as a “backup boar d, ” t hus des t r oy i ng anyi nfor m at i on
w hi ch coul d have be en di s pos i t i ve as t o t he i s s ue of w hether the p atron h ad i ndeed hi tt he j ackpot
. I n addr es s i ng t hi s i s s ue, w e s t at ed, i nt eral i a:

### 19

T he I s l e and CD S [C as i no D at a Sy s t ems] ar gue t hatt he nega t i ve pr es um pt i on r ai s ed bys pol i at i on “may onl ybe dr aw n w hen the des t ruct i on i s unexpl ai ned ordel i ber at e. ” H ow ever , t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n m achi ne 2947 w as not l os tbyactof G od ori n a fi r e, butw as des t r oy ed byt he ac t ion s o f I s l e and C D S w hen atl eas tone of them w as aw ar e of the pendi ng di s put e. I f noti nt ent i onal , t hei ract i ons w er e at l eas t gr os s l y negl i gent
. T he ca s i no w as undera s t atut or y dut y t o cont act t he C om m i s s i on w hen i tbeca m e cl eart hatt he di s put e had notbeen r es ol ved t o T hom as ' s s at i s fac t i on. H ad the I s l e done s o, a m o re th o ro u g h in v e stig a tio n m a y h a v e e n su e d , a n d th e slo t m a c h in e w o u ld have be en pr ese r ved. T her efor e, i tcannotbe s ai d t hatt he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n t he C PU of m achi ne 2947 w as l os tt hr ough no faul tof t he I s l e or CD S. R equi r i ng an i nnocentl i t i gantt o pr ove fr audul enti nt en t on t he partof t he s p o l i a t o r w o u l d r e s u l t i n p l a c i n g t o o o n e r o u s a b u r d e n o n t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y. T o h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d e n c o u r a g e p a r t i e s w i t h w e a k c a s e s t o “ i n a d v e r t e n t l y” lo se p a rticu lar ly d a m n in g e v id e n c e a n d th e n m a n u f a c tu re “ in n o c e n t” expl anat i ons fort he l os s . I n t hi s w ay , t he s pol i at orcoul d es s ent i al l ydes t r oy ev iden ce an d then req u ir e the inn o ce n t p arty to p rov e f rau d u lent inten t bef

o re th e d e stru c tio n o f

th e e v id e n c e c o u ld b e u se d a g a in st it. T hom as , 781 So. 2d at133. ¶32. I n D eL a u g h te r

, a d au g h ter co m m en ce d a w ron g fu l d ea th su it ag ains t ce rt ain d o ctors and a hos pi t al forherm ot her ’ s death. C r i t i cal hos pi t al r ecor ds w er e l os tand att r i al , t he pl ai nt i ff s ubm i t t ed thr ee s pol i at i on of evi dence i ns t ruct i ons , al l of w hi ch w er e re fus ed byt he t r i al cour t
. T hi s C our taddr es s ed thi s i s s ue bys t at i ng, i nt eral i a: T he evid e nc e i n thi s c a s e s ho w s t ha tt he H os pi t a l r e fu s e d t o r e l e a s e M s. L a mb e r t ' s me d i c a l r e c o r d s t o h e r f a mi l y wi t h o u t p r o p e r a u t h o r i z a t i o n . On M ar ch 5, 1985, aft ert he dea t h of M s . L amber t , t he D i r ect orof N ur s es at L aw rence C ou ntyH ospit al i nst ruct ed the r ecords cust od i an to l ock up M s. L amber t ' s r ecor d s o t hatt he fa m i l ycoul d notgett hem. W hen the r ecor ds cust od i an att em pted t o co m plyw i t h the instruct i on s, she dis cov ered t hat M s. L amber t ' s hos pi t al r ecor ds w er e mi s s i ng.

### 20

T he r ecor ds had l as tbeen s een i n t he H os pi t al t w o or t hr ee day s pr i ort o M ar ch 5, 1985, s i t t i ng i n D r . Pace' s box aw ai t i ng di ct at i on of M s . L amber t ' s di s char ge s um m ary . U pon di s coveryt hatt he cha r tw as m i s s i ng, t he H os pi t al s etabout r econs t ruct i ng t he fi l e by gather i ng copi es of i t ems fr om t he var i ous m edi cal depa rt m ent s w i t hi n t he H os pi t al
. W hen r econs t ruct ed, t he cha r tw as inco m p let e, l ac k ing the m ed ical hist o ryo r ph y sical asse ssm en t t ak en b yD r. C ol l i ns on M s . L amber t ' s admi s s i on to the H o s pi t al on February2, and the “nur s es ' pr ogr es s not es ” compi l ed dur i ng M s . L amber t ' s hos pi t al i zat i on fr om February2 t hr ough t he morni ng of February4 w hen M s . L amber tw as t ransfer red t o S t
. D om i nic H ospit al
. O ne o f t he “n urses ' progress not es” contained the I C U nur s e' s obs er vat i ons of M s . L amber tfr om 10: 00 p. m . on February3 unt i l 1: 30 a. m . on February4. T hi s i s s ue conc erns w hatt he j ur yw as ent it led to hearand w hati ns t ruct i on sh o u ld h av e b ee n g iven reg ard ing the re co n stru cted m ed ical reco rds. T h e jury w a s e n tit led to b e to ld th e o rig in a l h o sp ital re c o rd w o u ld n o t b e p ro d u c e d in c o u rt, as th a t w a s a re lev a n t f a c t. T h e h o sp ital h a d th e d u tyto g iv e a n a d e q u a te ex p lana ti o n fo r t h e ab sen ce o f the o ri g inal h o sp it al reco rd. T h ere fo re, th e jury w as ent i t l ed t o be t ol d w hy t he or i gi nal hos pi t al r ecor d w as m i s s i ng, al s o a re lev a n t f

a c t. A s w i t h any ot her evi dence , t he expl anat i on for t he or i gi nal r ecor d' s abs ence m a yb e f u llysa tisf

y in g e ith e r th a t it w a s lo st th ro u g h n o f a u lt o f th e h o sp ital, th a t th e h o sp ital d e lib e ra telyd e stro y e d it, o r a s in m o st c a se s, so m e w h e re in b e tw e e n , the re b ym a k in g it a ju ryiss u e . F o r e x a m p le, w h e re th e e v id e n c e is p o sitiv e th a t th e h o sp ital h a d b e e n d e stro y e d b yf ire , su c h c irc u m sta n c e w o u ld a d e q u a telya c c o u n t f

o r th e lo ss o f

th e o rig in a l m e d ica l re c o rd w ith o u t f a u lt at t r i but abl e t o t he hos pi t al , and ther e w oul d be no r ea so n fo r the j ur yt o be i nst ruct ed o n a p res um pti on or i nference a ri si ng from t he loss
. O n th e o th e r h a n d , w h e re th e e v id e n c e is p o sitiv e th a t th e h o sp ital d e lib e ra tely des t r oy ed t he or i gi nal m edi cal r ecor d or w her e a r ecor d r equi r ed byl aw t o be k e p t is un av ail ab le du e to n eg li g en ce , an inf ere n ce arises tha t th e re co rd con t ai ned i nfo rm at i on un favo rabl e t o the hosp i t al , a n d t he jur yshou l d b e so i ns t ruct ed. T hi s i s pr eci sely the si tuat i on w hen a pa t i entcl ai m s t he medi cal p ri v ile g e a n d p re v e n ts h i s p h ys ic ia n f ro m te s tif

y in g in c o u rt
. P itt

m an v. Mendenhall

-Mim s Mitchel

l F uneral H om e, I nc. , 242 M i s s . 877, 137 So. 2d 518 ( 1962)
. L i kew i s e, w her e the evi dence i s s om ew her e i n betw een s uch that t he j ur ycoul d fi n d t hatt he hos pi t al ei t herhad orhad notdel i ber at el yor

### 21

negl i gent l ydes t r oy ed t he or i gi nal m edi cal r ecor d, t he j ur ys houl d be i ns t ruct ed to tak e th is in to a c c o u n t. T h u s, w h e re th e e v id e n c e re g a rd in g th e m iss in g o rig in a l m e d ic a l r e c o rd s is s uch thatt he j ur yi s ent i t l ed t o an i ns t ruct i on, t he i ns t ruct i on s houl d r equi r e the j ur yt o fi r s tdet er m i ne w hetherr eas onabl e expl anat i on fort he l os s of t he m i s s i ng or i gi nal m edi cal r ecor d has been pr es ent ed by t he hos pi t al
. Shoul d t he j ur ydet er m i ne fr om t he expl anat i on pr ovi ded thatt he l oss o f the or i gi nal m edi cal rec or d w as noti n anyw ayat t r i but abl e t o t he del i ber at e ornegl i gent act i ons of t he hos pi t al , t he j ur ycoul d noti nfert hat the m issi n g or i gi nal m edi cal r ecor d cont ai ned i nfor m at i on unfavor abl e t o t he hos pi t al
. H ow eve r, s houl d t he j ur ydet er m i ne fr om t he expl anat i on p rovi ded thatt he l os s of t he or i gi nal m edi cal r ecor d w as del i ber at el yornegl i gent l ybr oughtaboutbyt he act i ons of t he hos pi t al , t he j ur ycoul d i nfert hatt he mi s s i ng or i gi nal m edi cal re c o rd c o n tain e d in f

o rm a tio n u n f

a v o ra b le to th e h o sp ital. D eLau ghter , 601 So. 2d at821- 22. T hus , t hi s C our tfound t h at th e ac ti ons of t he hos pi t al empl oy ees caus ed t he r el evant m edi cal r ecor ds t o be l os tordes t r oy ed, and thatt he hos pi t al

r ecor ds w ere n o tful l yr econs t ruct ed; t her efor e, t he tr i al cour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o pl ace t he bu rden on t he ho spi t al t o dem on strat e t hat t he ho spi t al had no tl ostor dest roy ed the r ecords,

a n d th e tr ia l c o u rt f

u rt h e r e rr e d in f

a ilin g to g iv e a s p o lia tio n o f e v id e n c e in s tr u c tio n . I d . at 823. ¶33. T ur ni ng t o t oday ’ s cas e, R i char ds on s ubm i t t ed j ur yi ns t ruct i on P- 16, a s pol i at i on of evi dence i ns t ruct i on, forcons i der at i on byt he tr i al cour tbeca us e N orfo lk S out hern never
r ecove r ed t he t r ai n’ s event r ecor der
. H ow ever , t he fa ct s of t hi s cas e do notcr eat e the l egal pr es um pt i on t hatt he i n fo rm at i on on t he l os tordes t r oy ed eve ntr ecor derw oul d have be en unfavor abl e t o N or fol k Sout hern. I ndee d , the fact s i n t hi s cas e pal e i n compar i s on t o t he negl i gentori nt ent i onal ac ti o n s of t he ca s i no i n T h om as and the hos pi t al i n D eLau ghter .

### 22

S u c c in c tlysta ted , the re w a s c o n sid e ra b le te stim o n yc o n c e rn in g N o rf o lk S o u th e rn ’s e f

f o rts t o r ecove rt hi s eventr ecor der
. L i kew i s e, t he r ecor d r evea l s t hatt he l ocomot i ves pul l i ng t he tra in in v o lv e d in th e c o lli sio n w ith M ik ie’ s v e h icle w e re U n io n P a c if ic lo c o m o tiv e s. W h ile th e N o rf o lk S o u th e rn o f

f icia ls w e re f

in a lly a b le to re c o v e r fro m th e U n io n P a c if ic o f f icia ls th e e v e n t re c o r d e r p rin to u ts f ro m th e e v e n t re c o rd e r in th e se c o n d lo c o m o tiv e , ef f o rts to
s ecur e ordow nl oad anyi nfor m at i on fr om t he l ead l ocomot i ve w er e uns ucce s s ful
. T he evi dence att r i al r evea l ed t hatt he l ead l ocomot i ve evi dent l y w as noteven e qui pped w i t h an

e v e n t re c o rd e r. N o rf

o lk S o u th e rn c lea rly m e t its b u rd e n o f sh o w in g th a t i t ( N o r f o lk Sout hern) di d notl os e or des t r oy t he eve ntr ecor der
. T he r ecor d i s abs ol ut el ydevoi d of any evi dence t hatN or fol k Sout hern i n anyw ay inten ti onal l y , oreven ne gl i gent l y , des t r oy ed evi dence i n i t s pos s es s i on. ¶34. For t hes e r eas ons , w e fi nd t hatt he tr ial co u rt d id n o t co m m i terr ori n r efus i ng R ich a rd so n ’s s p o liatio n o f e v id e n c e ju ryin stru c tio n ; th e re f o re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶35. W e ar e ce r t ai nl ynotunm i ndful of t he t r agedy of t hi s cas e – t he death of a s i xt een- y ear ol d chi l d, w hi ch u n q u esti onabl yhas br oughtuni m agi nabl e gr i ef t o M i ki e’ s fami l yand fr i ends
. T hi s C our t , how ever , m us t appl y bas i c t or t l aw pr i nci pl es s uch as dut y , br eac h of d u t y , p r o x i ma t e c a u s a t i o n a n d d a ma g e s . E v e n wh e n d a ma g e s a r e u n q u e s t i o n a b l yp r o v e n , we still m u st f

irst d e c id e th e iss u e o f

liab ili ty . W e a r e th u s c o n stra in e d a s a m a tter o f w e lle sta b lish e d law to f

in d th a t th e trial co u rt c o m m itt e d n o e rro r i n its ru lin g s (1 ) th a t c e rta in

### 23

s t at e t or tcl ai m s as s er t ed byR i char ds on w ere p r eempt ed byfede r al l aw ; ( 2) t hatevi dence

o f o ther a cc iden ts atthe ra il roa d cro ssing w as in ad m issi b le; a n d , (3) tha t certai n jury i ns t ruct i ons s ubm i t t ed byR i char ds on m us tbe r efus ed. For t hes e r eas ons , w e af fi r m t he fi nal j u d g m e n ti n f

a v o ro f N o r f o l k S o u t h e r n a s e n t e r e d b y t h e C i r c u i tC o u r to f A l c o r n C o u n t y. ¶ 3 6
. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , EA SLE Y, DI CKI NS ON AND RA ND OL P H, J J . , CO NC UR . DI AZ AND GR AV E S , J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .