Opinion ID: 2551157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction was Applicable in the Instant Case

Text: The jury instruction on contributory negligence was applicable to the evidence yet it was insufficient because the evidence also implicated assumption of the risk. See Siciliano v. Denver & R.G.W. R.R., 12 Utah 2d 183, 364 P.2d 413, 415 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 979, 82 S.Ct. 476, 7 L.Ed.2d 521 (1962) (noting that [t]here may be a case where the issue was not pleaded but where the evidence so emphasizes the fact that the employee recklessly and foolishly took on a known and dangerous hazard as to `create improper inferences' that should be `dispelled' by a cautionary instruction). In the instant case, the jury was instructed to presume that the Decedent acted with due care, i.e. that he had acted reasonably. Amtrak presented evidence about the Decedent's choice not to exercise his Right of Refusal and his failure to use the care that a reasonably prudent person would by coming into contact with the live wire, arguably, to show that the Decedent acted unreasonably. Thus, the jury was instructed about contributory negligence so that liability could be apportioned between Amtrak and the Decedent if the jury found both parties to have acted negligently. Amtrak contended that the Decedent was the sole cause of his fatal injury because he was not acting pursuant to Amtrak's orders, he knew it was dangerous to mount the roof of the Cat Car, and he voluntarily chose to place himself at risk because he encountered an energized wire. The record reflects, and at oral argument before this Court Amtrak emphasized, that it was baffled by Decedent's choice and that the choice, in effect, precluded Amtrak's negligence under the circumstances because causation was attributable only to Decedent. An employer may not, however, benefit from a finding of non-negligence based on an impermissible inference by the jury, which is our perception of the result in this case. The Court of Special Appeals analyzed two potential evidentiary sources of confusion for the jury, at Collins's behest, namely the Right of Refusal Policy and Decedent's decision to mount the roof of the Cat Car. That court held that there was no error in denying Collins's proposed jury instruction because neither evidentiary source necessitated an assumption of the risk instruction. Collins, 187 Md.App. at 314-16, 978 A.2d at 833-34. The intermediate appellate court explained: In light of the evidence adduced that (1) the Decedent violated the standard of care, (2) there was a reasonable alternative in instructing the operator to lower the pantograph, and (3) no crew member ordered the Decedent to go onto the roof of the Cat Car and somehow get close to the pantograph, we conclude that the doctrine of assumption of risk was not implicated by the evidence elicited at trial pertaining to the Decedent's decision to go onto the roof of the Cat Car when the pantograph was energized. Collins, 187 Md.App. at 315-16, 978 A.2d at 834. In essence, the court held that because there was no direct order to mount the roof, Mr. Collins was charged with acting reasonably, which he did not do, therefore the jury was only confronted with the possibility that he was contributorily negligent. We conclude, by contrast, that there was evidence adduced that Mr. Collins was acting pursuant to custom, it was to be presumed that he acted reasonably, and Amtrak mounted a defense directed to the elements of assumption of the risk in addition to, if not to the near exclusion of, contributory negligence. See Joyce v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 651 F.2d 676, 683 (10th Cir.1981) (holding that, under the Jones Act applying principles of FELA, an assumption of the risk instruction was necessary because the evidence focused on the employee's acceptance of the dangerous condition and not the employee's negligent act or omission); see also Rivera v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 474 F.2d 255, 257-58 (2d Cir. 1973) (stating that a jury finding of contributory negligence based on the employee's strength of knowledge that a dangerous condition in his line of duty ... his working in that line of duty was assumption of the risk masquerading under another name). A cautionary or clarifying instruction was needed to direct the jury to consider Decedent's carelessness, not his acceptance of risk. [17]
Petitioner asserts that evidence of the Decedent's decision not to invoke his Right of Refusal warranted the cautionary instruction because the jury may have concluded that the Decedent assumed the risks of his employment because he did not refuse to perform the job under the particular conditions, i.e. the energized line. Respondent asserts that the evidence of the Decedent's decision not to opt out of the assignment, or request that the electricity be shut down from the area of track involved is evidence of contributory negligence, not assumption of risk because the evidence shows that safer alternatives, besides quitting, were available. It is undisputed that employees of Amtrak may invoke the Right of Refusal policy, which was offered into evidence through the testimony of Gerard Nangle, the Director of Electrical Traction Maintenance. According to Mr. Nangle, any member of the engineering department ha[d] the right to refuse work that they [felt was] unsafe. The intermediate appellate court held that evidence describing Amtrak's Right of Refusal policy did not expressly or implicitly inject[ ] assumption of the risk into the trial. Collins, 187 Md.App. at 314, 978 A.2d at 833. The court's reasoning on that point follows: Contrary to Collins'[s] contention, Amtrak's reference to the Right of Refusal was not for the purpose of arguing that the Decedent had the right to refuse to work under an energized wire, thereby implying that he voluntarily accepted working under a known dangerous condition. Cf. Taylor, 787 F.2d at 1316 (The employee who enters the workplace for a routine assignment in compliance with the orders and directions of his employer or its supervising agents, who by such entry incurs risks not extraordinary in scope, is not contributorily negligent, but rather is engaging in an assumption of the risk.). [18] Instead, Amtrak used the Right of Refusal to show a safer alternative to conducting the catenary alignment readings under an energized wire, namely, doing the same job under a de-energized wire. Working under an energized line was not necessary for the Decedent and the crew to perform the alignment readings. In fact, about 99% of the time the crew performed the readings under a de-energized wire, and there was no advantage in terms of electrical engineering practices to taking readings under an energized line versus a de-energized line. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Right of Refusal was used to suggest a reasonable alternative,  besides quitting or refusing to perform the task in an unsafe way,  see Fashauer, 57 F.3d. at 1280 (emphasis added), thereby raising the issue of contributory negligence, not assumption of the risk. Collins, 187 Md.App. at 313, 978 A.2d at 833 (first emphasis added). The intermediate appellate court concluded that Amtrak did not offer the evidence of the policy for the purpose of supporting a forbidden defense. In our view, however, it is not purpose, but the impact of the evidence and argument of counsel on the fact finder that was and is at issue. [19] See Jenkins v. Union Pac. R. Co., 22 F.3d 206, 212 (9th Cir.1994) (noting [i]t is the evidence itself, not the defendant's characterization of it, that drives the analysis). The intermediate appellate court agreed with Respondent that evidence of the Decedent's decision that the work could be completed safely under energized wires demonstrated contributory negligence because it showed that safer alternatives, besides quitting, were available to Mr. Collins, and that he acted unreasonably in not pursing them. To the contrary, the jury could have found that the same evidence was suggestive of Mr. Collins's knowing acceptance of a danger that relieved Amtrak of its duty, thereby appealing to assumption of the risk. See Vandaveer v. Norfolk & W.R. Co., 78 Ill.App.2d 186, 222 N.E.2d 897 (1966) (ruling that evidence of an employee's ability to request another job, could have led a jury to infer that the employee assumed the risks associated with her current job and so an instruction was not improper). It is the potential impact on the jury, and not the proffered, or subsequently divined, purpose of the evidence that should govern whether a cautionary instruction is given. Respondent's argument and the Court of Special Appeals's analysis are not persuasive because both fashion an under inclusive net to catch the instances where an assumption of the risk instruction is needed. Testimony solicited by Respondent from Mr. Nangle immediately after he summarized the Right of Refusal policy, focused on the Decedent's knowledge of policy, the extent of the safety briefing just prior to executing the assignment, and the decision of the crew to do the job under energized wire. The juxtaposition of the evidence of the `opt-out' policy with the repeated testimony related to Mr. Collins's knowledge and experience in his particular line of work evokes elements of the assumption of the risk defense and not careless deviation from the standard of care. The Court of Special Appeals's consideration of the Right of Refusal Policy and that court's conclusion that it could not have raised an impermissible inference of assumption of the risk is also inconsistent with its holding in a similar case, CSX Transp., Inc. v. Richard Bickerstaff, et al., 187 Md.App. 187, 978 A.2d 760 (2009), in which a cautionary instruction was given and upheld on appeal. [20] In Bickerstaff, the Court of Special Appeals identified evidence presented at trial by the appellant employer that supported the trial judge's decision to give a cautionary instruction, namely making choices to work at a particular rail yard, to mount and dismount moving equipment at a particular speed, [and] to take on a job involving more walking.... The court concluded: The evidence adduced and argument presented concerning appellees' choice of work or work site thus support the inference that appellees voluntarily and knowingly accepted the dangers inherent in working for appellant when they performed their jobs. Such evidence and argument increased the risk that, in the absence of an instruction, the jury would improperly infer that appellees had assumed the risk in performing their work. Therefore, the subject jury charge adequately, and quite appropriately, distinguished between conduct constituting contributory negligence and conduct constituting assumption of risk. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in giving a jury instruction on assumption of risk. Bickerstaff, 187 Md.App. at 228, 978 A.2d at 784 (emphasis added). In the instant case, the Court of Special Appeals went beyond the evidence of the Right of Refusal policy to divine a purpose for which that evidence was offered and then to declare that purpose to be wholly in alignment with the railroad management's proffered reason for offering the evidence, namely to bolster a contributory negligence defense. The intermediate appellate court was satisfied in Bickerstaff, however, that evidence of choice of work site, analogous to the choice to work under an energized line despite recourse to the Right of Refusal Policy, was sufficient to warrant a clarifying, cautionary instruction. The Court of Special Appeals offered no persuasive reason in the instant case to distinguish its conclusion here from the one reached in Bickerstaff. In the present case, the Court of Special Appeals also held that the evidence presented at trial regarding the reasons and presumptions about why decedent went onto the roof of the Cat Car, tended to show that the Decedent departed from the standard of care and acted unreasonably under the circumstances, thus implicating the defense of contributory negligence and not assumption of the risk. Collins, 187 Md.App. at 315, 978 A.2d at 834 (citation omitted). In its closing statement to the jury, Amtrak highlighted Mr. Collins's knowledge of the dangers of the energized catenary system and his choice to mount the roof to tie down the pantograph. This argument, however, is consistent with the theory of assumption of risk. In light of the conflicting evidence, it is unclear whether the Decedent was acting with the discretion that is central to the intermediate appellate court's reasoning and conclusion that assumption of the risk was not implicated. It is unknown exactly why Collins went on the roof, but physical evidence suggests he was in a position to stomp on the car roof thereby alerting the operator that he was tying-down the pantograph. The jury necessarily was confronted with conflicting evidence on precisely why the power remained on in this particular circumstance, especially in light of repeated testimony that this kind of routine maintenance was performed under a de-energized line 99% of the time. Petitioner elicited testimony at trial tending to cast Amtrak as directing the crew explicitly, through a conscious decision, to work under an energized line. Respondent, however, contends that it was the crew's decision to do the alignment reading under energized wire. One of the crew members, George Breader, testified that it was the crew foreman, Thomas Boone, who made the decision to do the reading under an energized line, and the crew agreed with that decision. At trial, an Amtrak official testified that an advantage to keeping the power on was that when you remove power, trains won't run on certain areas. One of the crew members also testified that [t]he advantage [to keeping the power on] is that the less people that have to be involved[,] ... the less time that it requires. A reasonable jury could have inferred from this evidence that Amtrak directed Mr. Collins to `accept a dangerous condition' of employment and that there was a benefit to the company in leaving the power on during the assignment. According to the Tenth Circuit, when the evidence could support either contributory negligence or assumption of the risk, instructions which only define contributory negligence are not sufficient to prevent the jury from applying assumption of the risk. Sauer v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 106 F.3d 1490, 1493 (10th Cir.1996) (involving a FELA case where the instruction did address assumption of the risk and its inapplicability, albeit without mentioning the defense by name); see e.g., Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Thomas, 258 Va. 516, 522 S.E.2d 620 (1999) (noting that the same evidence may be relevant to both defenses). Here, Amtrak's theory of the case was that Mr. Collins elected to encounter the known risks of working in the vicinity of an energized wire. The jury could have concluded that Mr. Collins was carrying out continuing orders from Amtrak to tie down the pantograph as a matter of course. This interpretation of the evidence could have led to a finding of contributory negligence or assumption of risk.
The Court of Special Appeals concluded, it is clear that the evidence adduced does not show that the Decedent impliedly consented to `perform[ ] a task in the manner which [Amtrak] directed.' Collins, 187 Md.App. at 313, 978 A.2d at 833 (quoting Fashauer, 57 F.3d at 1279-80). In our view, it is not clear that the evidence only permitted one inference, which in the intermediate appellate court's opinion, would be the inference that Decedent acted under a `general' order implicating only contributory negligence and not assumption of the risk. The jury may have reasonably inferred that the custom of tying-down the pantograph amounted to or derived from the existence of a direct order. In either case, it was a determination properly made by the jury and requiring full disclosure of the difference between contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. Although neither party produced evidence of an explicit order to mount the Cat Car and tie down the pantograph, that was precisely what was customarily done when an alignment job was completed. Tying down the pantograph was the universally understood custom among members of the D-126 crew and it was known to Amtrak officials who did not definitively stop the practice. At trial, Amtrak's attorney asked Gerard Nangle: Did anyone that night, just so we are clear and the jurors, did you have any information that any crew membereither foreman, Mr. Boone, operator, Mr. Breader, or Mr. Backer, who I think maybe was not there at the time, he was doing other thingsdo you have any information that any crew member ordered Mr. Collins to go up top and somehow get close to the pantograph, for any reason? Mr. Nangle answered, No, no one, to our knowledge, gave instruction for him to go up. Thomas Boone, the crew foreman, however, offered contradictory testimony that there was a general instruction to always tie down the pantograph. [COLLINS'S COUNSEL]: You were told by Mr. Fora, the Assistant Division Engineer, to tie down the pantograph even though it completely was without any history of failure, correct? Mr. Boone: Correct. [COLLINS'S COUNSEL]: Had you ever seen anything in writing about the tying-down of the pantograph? Mr. Boone: (No audible response.) [COLLINS'S COUNSEL]: Had you ever been given any detailed instructions about tying-down the pantograph? Mr. Boone: Just to tie them down. [COLLINS'S COUNSEL]: And that was direction from Mr. Foura to tie it down under all circumstances, correct? Mr. Boone: Correct. Further, Mr. Boone testified that he did not know whether the rule applied when the wires were energized or de-energized. Later at trial, Walter Foura, a Senior Project Officer in the Mid-Atlantic Division testified that he verbally communicated to foremen and supervisors to pass down to their subordinates the rule that the pantograph was to be tied down, but only under a de-energized line. In response to a question about why none of Amtrak's ground crews seemed to know about this caveat to the rule, that it be tied down under de-energized lines, Mr. Foura said that it was the responsibility of the foreman and supervisors to disseminate the information. Then, Mr. Foura testified about a 2004 memo written by upper level management explicitly stating that the pantograph was never to be tied down under any circumstance. Evidence was also adduced at trial that the crews tied down the pantograph routinely because a latch on the Cat Car which should have functioned to keep the pantograph secured to the roof of the vehicle did not function at the time of Decedent's fatal injury, and had never functioned properly. Thus, the evidence on this subject was contradictory. It is conceivable, in light of this evidence, that the jury may have inferred that Collins was following his employer's direction that the pantograph should be tied down at the end of an alignment reading job in accordance with his understanding of his position on the crew and the customary procedure. This inference would invoke the direct order that, under Fashauer, warrants a cautionary instruction. This evidence about the tie down procedure, along with evidence of the safety meeting prior to the job and the investigative report finding that the Decedent acted without orders to mount the roof and approach live wire, directs attention to Decedent's knowledge, choice, and awareness of risk. The jury may have dismissed Amtrak's characterization and testimony about the custom and rules relating to tying-down the pantograph. Because we cannot know whether the jury properly considered only those aspects of the evidence relative to carelessness, we cannot be confident that the verdict reflects the jury's conclusion that the sole cause of the Decedent's injury was his own carelessness or that it was his assumption of the risk. See Jenkins, 22 F.3d 206, 211-12 (9th Cir.1994) (noting the assumption of the risk instruction is warranted if the evidence can prove either contributory negligence or assumption of the risk). Hamrock v. Consol. Rail Corp., 151 Ill. App.3d 55, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d 1274 (1986) illustrates how an appellate court in Illinois resolved a case where it was unclear if the employee was acting under direct or general orders. In Hamrock, the conductor informed Hamrock's crew about the movements that would need to be made to align the train cars in the desired configuration, and each member was to decide how to execute his part of the job. Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1276. The court said: Because there was support in the record for plaintiff's theory that he merely performed a dangerous job under orders and in the customary manner without safe alternatives available to him, there was evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that plaintiff assumed the risk and a cautionary instruction should have been given. Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1280. In Hamrock, the court determined defendant's attempt to show that the sole cause of plaintiff's injury was his own carelessness by emphasizing plaintiff's years as a brakeman, his familiarity with the coupling maneuver, and his knowledge of the condition of the yard underscore[d] the need for a cautionary instruction .... Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1280. Amtrak presented a similar case hereevidence was adduced regarding Collins's training, knowledge of the procedures, and awareness of the dangerousness of working under energized lines. The case is instructive because Mr. Hamrock, like Mr. Collins, was familiar with the railroad's safety rules but stated that he and other train men customarily rode moving cars and manipulated the angle cock with their feet. Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1276 (emphasis added). This practice, like tying-down the pantographs, was not in accordance with the formal rules set by the employer. The court in Hamrock also stated that just because an employee violates a safety rule, that does not establish that the employee was the sole cause of his injuries particularly in light of evidence that the rules were seldom utilized or were nullified by custom. Hamrock, 103 Ill.Dec. 736, 501 N.E.2d at 1280. Because the jury could have made the inference that Collins was on the roof of the Cat Car, to do what he understood his job to be, even under dangerous conditions, the cautionary instruction about assumption of the risk should have been given.
Respondent contended at oral argument that Petitioner's question before this Court is moot because the jury answered No to Question 1 on the verdict sheet, asserting, as we understand it, that because the jury found that Amtrak was not negligent it necessarily did not perform any analysis of proposed, or implied affirmative defenses. [21] Respondent's argument fails to recognize that the structure of Question 1 on the verdict sheet compounded the trial court's error in not instructing the jury on the inapplicability of the assumption of the risk defense. In answering No to the first question, the jury may have concluded that the employee had assumed the risks of his employment, thereby negating Amtrak's duty entirely, or the jury could have found that Amtrak was negligent but did not cause Mr. Collins's fatal injury because, as Amtrak characterized it, he was solely responsible for his injury. A prima facie case of negligence under FELA is based on the common law elements in accordance with federal law: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation. [22] , [23] Szekeres v. CSX Transp., Inc., 617 F.3d 424 (6th Cir.2010) (citing Adams v. CSX Transp., Inc., 899 F.2d 536, 539 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that a FELA plaintiff asserting a cause of negligence against his or her employer must prove the traditional common law elements of negligence: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation)). Ordinarily the general concept of negligence and the instruction on causation, distinct elements in a negligence claim, are explained and represented in separate questions on the verdict sheet. Vol. ♦Ch. 9, Modern Federal Jury Instructions Civil, ¶ 6.2-6.4 (Matthew Bender 2010) (illustrating a model verdict sheet in which the elements of negligence and causation are addressed separately and in that order); see also 9-49 BENDER'S FEDERAL PRACTICE FORMS Form No. 49:34 (2010) (providing a sample verdict sheet in which the question of negligence preceded the question of causation); see MARYLAND CIVIL PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS §§ 19-1, 19-10 (Maryland Bar Association, 4th ed.2009 Supp.) (defining the general concept of negligence and causation elements respectively). The issue raised in the petition for certiorari is not moot. In the present case, negligence and causation were combined into the first question on the verdict sheet. Here, the evidence presented focused on knowledge of danger and voluntary encounter of risks. In addition, the lack of a cautionary instruction, compounded by a verdict sheet that did not separate negligence from causation, suggests that the jury may have impermissibly concluded that Mr. Collins assumed the risk of his injuries thereby negating Amtrak's duty. We look to the jury instructions that were given at trial to determine whether they are relevant in light of the issues raised and the evidence presented. [24] Jurors are presumed to have followed the instructions provided to them by the court, [o]ur legal system necessarily proceeds upon that presumption. State v. Moulden, 292 Md. 666, 678, 441 A.2d 699, 705 (1982) (citing Blanchfield v. Dennis, 292 Md. 319, 438 A.2d 1330 (1982)). This presumption directs our attention to the substance of the instruction, which is critically important in determining if the jury may have relied upon the defense that Mr. Collins assumed the risk of his injury. After discussing the elements to be considered in determining if Amtrak was negligent, the trial judge instructed the jury to presume that Mr. Collins had acted with due care, i.e. that he had acted reasonably, because he was deceased and could not present testimony on his own behalf. The jury was then instructed about the law with regard to contributory negligence: In determining whether the Plaintiff discharged the duty of ordinary care imposed upon him, it is proper for you to take into consideration his familiarity with the place in which he customarily worked and his familiarity with the nature of the work which was customarily performed in that place.    In this case, the Defendant contends that Mr. Collins'[s] injuries and death were due to Plaintiffs own negligence. This is referred to as contributory negligence. If you find that Mr. Collins was negligent and that Amtrak was not, then the Plaintiff is prevented from recovering damages under the Federal Employer's (sic) Liability Act. If you find that the negligence on the part of Mr. Collins and on the part of the Defendant each played a role in causing Mr. Collins'[s] injuries and death, then Mr. Collins'[s] negligence is referred to as contributory negligence and he is not prevented from recovering damages. Rather, Mr. Collins'[s] damages are reduced in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence attributable to him and I will explain that in some more detail very shortly.    If you find there was both a safe way and a dangerous way by which the Plaintiff could have performed his work and he knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of the safe way of doing such work and voluntarily chose the dangerous way and was injured thereby, and if you find that such choice constituted negligence on the Plaintiff's part and that such negligence was the sole cause of the alleged injury, if any, then the Plaintiff cannot recover and it would be your duty to return a verdict for the Defendant. [25] (Emphasis added.) While the instruction given adequately covered the law applicable to negligence and contributory negligence, it failed as a matter of law because, in substance, it did not address all of the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Assumption of the risk is a distinctive kind of contributory negligence, and so a jury should be instructed in a way that removes this theory from consideration. See generally PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS, § 68, 495. Because the instruction, particularly the language emphasized above, invokes a voluntary choice, the jury should have also been instructed to consider evidence of Decedent's carelessness independently of Decedent's knowing encounter with a danger in the course of his employment. As instructed, the elements of assumption of the risk were entangled with the elements of negligence and contributory negligence. In working out the distinction, the courts have arrived at the conclusion that assumption of risk is a matter of knowledge of the danger and intelligent acquiescence in it, while contributory negligence is a matter of some fault or departure from the standard of reasonable conduct, however unwilling or protesting the plaintiff may be. Koshorek, 318 F.2d at 367; see Johnson v. Erie R.R. Co., 236 F.2d 352, 355 (2d Cir.1956) (holding that only instructing on contributory negligence allowed for the jury to consider assumption of the risk in rendering its verdict). As a result of the instructions given, it is uncertain whether the jury found Amtrak to be not negligent or whether the jury's response to Question 1 meant that the jury found Amtrak to be negligent, but its negligence played no role in causing Collins's injuries. This uncertainty is pivotal because the Circuit Court's failure to instruct on the inapplicability of assumption of the risk allowed the jurors, on the issue of causation, to consider that Collins knew of the risk of working under energized wires, and, therefore, assumed the consequences of his voluntary choice to encounter that risk. The jury, in merely considering the element of causation, may have been misled by the evidence tending to show that Decedent assumed the risk of his own injuries.