Opinion ID: 4560957
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Exclusion of Walker’s Evidence and Walker’s Offers of Proof. The central issue in this appeal is generally whether the district court erred when it excluded Walker’s evidence, which according to Walker would have shown that a postaccident investigation led BNSF to believe that Big Red as modified by BNSF had been overloaded, leading to the risk of tipping over. Walker specifically claims that Bridges should have been permitted to testify to that effect. At trial, Walker attempted to question Bridges, BNSF’s designee at trial, regarding BNSF’s conclusions and belief that Big Red’s capacity was exceeded when lifting a G.E. traction motor using the attachment. Bridges was asked, “And, would you agree that BNSF and you as their corporate spokesman believe that the bracket caused or the attachment caused the overload[?]” BNSF objected, and the district court sustained the objection. This question launched subsequent offers of proof by Walker related to whether BNSF concluded and believed - 568 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports WALKER v. BNSF RAILWAY CO. Cite as 306 Neb. 559 that Big Red was over capacity when employees lifted G.E. traction motors with the forklifts with the BNSF attachments. BNSF objected to each offer of proof, and the court sustained the objections. Walker’s offers of proof submitted after the ruling included the questions and answers from Bridges’ deposition at which he had admitted the forklift as modified could cause an overload condition and risk of tipping. Rules of Evidence. At trial, BNSF made objections to Bridges’ testimony based both on the rules related to hearsay and on the prohibition against introduction of subsequent remedial measures, the latter of which is contained in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407 (Reissue 2016). Those rules are set forth below. Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the Nebraska Evidence Rules. O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., supra. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-803 (Reissue 2016). Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4) (Reissue 2016), set forth in relevant part, a statement is not hearsay if “(b) The statement is offered against a party and is . . . (iv) a statement by his agent or servant within the scope of his agency or employment . . . .” Section 27-407 provides: When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment. Negligence or culpable conduct, as used in this rule, shall include, but not be limited to, the manufacture or sale of a defective product. Admissibility Arguments. On appeal, Walker contends that the evidence sought to be elicited from Bridges was not hearsay, because it represented - 569 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports WALKER v. BNSF RAILWAY CO. Cite as 306 Neb. 559 the understandings of BNSF, and that the district court erred when it excluded the evidence on the basis of hearsay. In response, BNSF asserts that Bridges’ testimony was essentially a repeat of Taylor’s declarations and that the district court properly excluded Bridges’ statements because they are hearsay. Walker further contends that the evidence sought to be elicited from Bridges reflected BNSF’s postaccident investigation and was part of an investigation, and not a statement, concerning a subsequent remedial measure and that the district court erred when it excluded the evidence on this basis. In contrast, BNSF asserts that Bridges’ testimony was properly excluded as evidence of subsequent remedial measures. See § 27-407. Error, If Any, Was Not Unfairly Prejudicial. As explained below, we determine that even if the Bridgesrelated evidence was erroneously excluded, such error was not prejudicial. We determine that reversal is not required because the evidence which was excluded attempted to establish the same fact particularly regarding causation that Walker successfully presented to the jury by other means. [5] As we recited above, the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complaining party. See O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109, 903 N.W.2d 432 (2017). We have stated that when the information is, for the most part, already in evidence from the testimony of witnesses, the exclusion of the evidence is not prejudicial. See Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927, 857 N.W.2d 816 (2015). At trial, Walker presented evidence that Big Red was over capacity and argued that the overloaded forklift represented negligence by BNSF and was the cause of her injuries. Danaher, Walker’s expert certified professional engineer, opined that Big Red, outfitted with the attachment, was overloaded when carrying a G.E. motor regardless of its positioning. And Tester, - 570 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports WALKER v. BNSF RAILWAY CO. Cite as 306 Neb. 559 a safety trainer, also testified about the attachment to the forklift and concluded that “it was just inevitable an accident would happen.” He opined that under the standards set forth by the American National Standards Institute, such an attachment “[s]houldn’t have been used in the first place without expressed written approval by the manufacturer for them to do their testing on it to see if it was changing any of the stability of the forklift.” He explained to the jury that if BNSF had gone through industry standard protocol for adding an attachment, the forklift operators would have been apprised of the forklift’s new capacity through new tags and decals placed on the forklift. He testified that with respect to Big Red’s load, its “maximum would not be 18,425 pounds, it would be a lot less.” However, in spite of Walker’s success eliciting evidence concerning the hazard presented by Big Red’s attachment, there was other evidence at trial to support the jury’s verdict that Walker had not met her burden of proof. BNSF’s case at trial was that Walker’s operation of the forklift was dangerous and was the cause of its instability and the accident. Indeed, Walker’s expert witness, Danaher, testified on crossexamination that based on his discussions with Walker, she had not followed the training she had received for depositing a load, and Skelton, who witnessed the accident, testified that Walker raised the load to an abnormal height and tilted the mast forward more than necessary to deposit the load. Further, BNSF introduced evidence of a commonly used “rule of thumb” metric under which, it argued, Big Red was not overloaded. Thus, there was ample evidence for the jury’s consideration in support of both Walker’s and BNSF’s theories. Given the record, we conclude that the district court’s exclusion of evidence did not prejudice a substantial right of Walker’s.