Opinion ID: 786370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FHWA Handbook and the PSC Policy

Text: 34 Norfolk argues that the sight distance charts and graphs in the FHWA Handbook and the PSC policy that incorporated the sight distance information from the Handbook were irrelevant to Shanklin's claims and were thus erroneously admitted. 35 The Federal Rules of Evidence define relevant evidence broadly as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. Under Tennessee law, juries are required to compare the degree of fault of the parties, including the reasonableness of their conduct in light of all of the circumstances. See Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn.1994). A Tennessee jury must consider: the reasonableness of [a] party's conduct in confronting a risk, such as whether the party knew of the risk, or should have known of it. Id. at 592. Undoubtedly, whether or not Norfolk knew of the sight distance requirements recommended by the FHWA or PSC policy is a fact of consequence in relation to the issue of notice, because if Norfolk knew that a motorist needed to see a certain number of feet in order to perceive an oncoming train, it is more likely that it recognized that overgrown vegetation for which it was responsible could impede a motorist's view and cause a hazard. Indeed, it was undisputed at trial that the sight distance information from the Handbook was included in the minutes of the Norfolk Southern Tennessee Division Grade Crossing Safety Committee, and also that the sight distance information from the Handbook was incorporated into the PSC policy that was discussed with Norfolk Southern employees in Tennessee prior to the collision at issue. 6 36 Because the sight distance information in the Handbook, and as incorporated into the PSC policy, helps to illuminate the notice issue, and because the district court specifically instructed the jury that neither established a legal standard, this evidence was properly admitted. 7