Opinion ID: 1059246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negligence and Foreseeability

Text: We awarded N & W an appeal on three assignments of error. In its first two assignments, N & W asserts it was entitled to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law because Keeling presented no evidence of negligence in the administration of the PFT and no evidence that Keeling's injury was foreseeable. The legal principles applicable to these two assignments of error are well settled. Whether negligence has been established in a FELA claim is a matter of federal law. Norfolk S. Ry. v. Trimiew, 253 Va. 22, 24, 480 S.E.2d 104, 106 (1997). Under FELA, the railroad has a nondelegable duty to exercise reasonable care in providing a safe work place for its employees. Id. at 25, 480 S.E.2d at 106. The employer breaches this duty if its negligence causes, even in the slightest way, an injury to its employee. Reasonable foreseeability of harm is an essential element of negligence under FELA. Id. at 24, 480 S.E.2d at 106. Both foreseeability and negligence must be shown by more than a scintilla of evidence, and these issues are normally issues for the jury. Id. at 27, 480 S.E.2d at 108. The standard of review applicable to the first two assignments of error is also well established. The evidence and all inferences fairly made from that evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to Keeling. Austin v. Shoney's, Inc., 254 Va. 134, 138, 486 S.E.2d 285, 287 (1997). Further, this Court will not set aside the trial court's judgment unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Code § 8.01-680. N & W asserts that the record simply does not support Keeling's theory that the failure to excuse him from PFT testing when he received the initial higher blood pressure reading was negligent. N & W argues that Keeling was given the PFT only after his blood pressure reading was 158/102 and that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that administering a PFT following such a blood pressure reading was negligent. The heart of Keeling's allegation of negligence, N & W argues, is that the technician, N & W's agent, failed to follow N & W's internal protocol. The record does not support N & W's position. Rather, the record contains expert testimony that administering the PFT test following his initial blood pressure reading exposed Keeling to a greater risk of injury. Dr. Kirk E. Hippensteel, Keeling's expert in the field of pulmonology, testified that, in his expert medical opinion, no patient should be asked to perform a PFT following a blood pressure reading in excess of 200/110 or 200/115. Dr. Hippensteel explained that blood pressure is dynamic and that performing a PFT would likely cause a patient's blood pressure to increase. Such increase in blood pressure would decrease the autoregulation of the cardiovascular system and autoregulation of pressure in the brain. He opined that administering the PFT following the initial blood pressure reading in this case created the risk that Keeling's blood pressure, even following a rest period, would be as high or higher than the original blood pressure reading and that the test should not have been given. This evidence of negligence in administering the test after receiving the initial higher blood pressure reading is not related to an allegation that the negligence consisted of a violation of N & W's internal protocol. Dr. Hippensteel's opinion is an independent determination that the initial blood pressure level itself, regardless of the relationship of that level to the protocol, provided the basis to conclude that the PFT should not have been administered, regardless of subsequent blood pressure levels. We conclude that the record contains more than a scintilla of evidence that N & W was negligent when its agents administered a stressful PFT test to an employee with a blood pressure reading in excess of 200/110 or 200/115. See Trimiew, 253 Va. at 27-28, 480 S.E.2d at 108. We also agree with the trial court that sufficient evidence was produced to support a jury finding that injury was foreseeable as a result of administering the PFT under an elevated blood pressure level. An employee raising a FELA claim does not have to show that the employer's negligence would inevitably cause injury, had resulted in past injury, or would cause a specific kind of injury. See Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 372 U.S. 108, 120-21, 83 S.Ct. 659, 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963). N & W produced testimony that the blood pressure screening was done prior to administration of PFTs for general health purposes. Nevertheless, under N & W's protocol, the administration of a PFT was contingent upon an employee's blood pressure level. Thus, the jury was entitled to conclude that N & W believed there was a risk of harm associated with taking a PFT while experiencing certain blood pressure levels. Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to Keeling, we conclude that Keeling presented more than a scintilla of evidence that N & W knew or should have known that an injury was likely to occur if a PFT was given to an employee with a blood pressure level in excess of 200/110 or 200/115. Accordingly, the trial court properly submitted the issues of negligence and foreseeability to the jury and did not err in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on those issues.