Opinion ID: 1734624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duty to Train

Text: The plaintiffs next contend that the FELA imposed upon Norfolk Southern a duty to train the plaintiffs (as engineer and conductor) to take shelter in an area of the locomotive in whichin this casethey would not have been exposed to flames entering the windows. In support of this claim, they presented the testimony of a consulting engineer, William R. Bogett. In their case in chief, the plaintiffs repeatedly attempted to elicit an opinion from Bogett as to whether or not training should be provided to employees of railroads who operate locomotive engines, insofar as what they should do when involved in such a collision. (Reporter's Transcript, at 435.) Norfolk Southern objected to Bogett's offering such an opinion, on the ground that Bogett had no experience with respect to either the operation of a locomotive [or] the training of personnel. The trial court sustained Norfolk Southern's objections. Thus, the plaintiffs offered no testimony as to what training railroads were required to provide their locomotive operators. Nevertheless, over Norfolk Southern's objection, Bogett was allowed to state that, in his opinion, the safest place for locomotive operators to be when facing an imminent collision is in the vestibule, that is, in the front of the locomotive, near the point of impact. More specifically, he testified: Q. [By plaintiffs' counsel] And Dr. Bogett, do you have an opinion as to which part of the locomotive would be the safest part for a crew member to go to in the event they are about to be involved in a road-crossing collision? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what that is? A. It would depend on the vehicle that you were getting ready to strike, that was the impending collision. If it was small and low, such as an automobile, you are probably just as well off staying in your seat. I would say [that for] a larger vehicle you need to be in the center of the cab, up forward, preferably in the vestibule on the short hood. . . . . Q. When you say `vestibule,' what are you talking about? A. I mean there is a room that is to the front of the cab, between the cab and the trailer compartment, that is tight and confining, that would maintain your position far better than in the large volume in the cab. And in the event of a derailment and roll over it would continue from both frontal impact and from subsequent run-ins from cars catching up to you because of that, or brake application. It would help protect you from any intruding materials. (Reporter's Transcript, at 436-37.) As this excerpt from Bogett's testimony demonstrates, his opinion addressed only the possibility of injury from bruises and contusions as a result of being cast about the cab, or as a result of being speared or crushed by objects intruding into the cab. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs did not suffer injuries of these kinds. The only injuries the plaintiffs complain of are their burns. But Bogett offered no opinion as to where locomotive operators should go to protect themselves from fire, as in this case. Moreover, Bogett conceded that the best position for locomotive personnel to assume depends on the kind of collision that is imminent. He testified, in other words, that one rule cannot cover all contingencies. Indeed, during the testimony of William E. Honeycutt, an officer of Norfolk Southern (assistant vice-president, operating rules), Norfolk Southern introduced a photograph of a locomotive that had apparently struck a log truck. The vestibule section of that locomotive had been obliterated. According to Honeycutt's opinionif any was needed on that point had the operators of that locomotive been in the vestibule section, they, too, would have been destroyed. In this case, the plaintiffs sought to protect themselves from the impending collision by lying down on the floor. Martin testified that this was a precaution he had learned from more experienced locomotive operators. Indeed, the plaintiffs were veterans of numerous crossing accidents. Denson testified that in only one other crossing accident had he been injured; in that accident he had suffered a sprained ankle. He stated that, even after the accident out of which these present cases arose, he continued to lie down on the floor when faced with an imminent collision, because, he stated, he found that that is a good place to go ... when ... a truck is about to cause a collision with [his] train. (Reporter's Transcript, at 376.) In short, there was a complete failure of proof as to the existence of a duty on the part of Norfolk Southern to instruct these plaintiffs in any manner material to this case. Given the way these cases are postured, we refuse to hold that Norfolk Southern had a duty to instruct Martin and Denson to go to the vestibulethe area of the locomotive nearest the point of impact. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying Norfolk Southern's motion for a judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' claim alleging the breach of such a duty.