Court Opinion

ID: 9473459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:30:35.813977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:32.808582
License: Public Domain

FAGG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe that the district court committed error in refusing to submit the issue of contributory negligence to the jury, I respectfully dissent.
The railroad has the burden of proving contributory negligence of an employee. Wilson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 670 F.2d 780, 782 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1120, 102 S.Ct. 2934, 73 L.Ed.2d 1333 (1982). It is entitled to have its contributory negligence theory submitted to the jury if there is any support for the theory in evidence. Id. The court, looking to the uncontradicted evidence of record that Borough alighted from the moving train in the manner prescribed, by the railroad, holds that there was no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of Borough. I disagree.
Railroad Safety Rule D3 specifically provides that “[w]hen getting on or off moving equipment, watch the ground closely to avoid any condition that would cause falling, slipping, tripping or turning of an ankle. If necessary, stop movement, so you may alight safely.” In response to a question from defense counsel as to whether it was a very bad situation as he saw it that day, Borough responded, “Yes.” Thus, in spite of Borough’s admitted awareness of the pellets, the dangerous situation, and a safety rule instructing employees to stop movement of equipment if necessary to alight safely, Borough stepped off the moving train onto the taco-nite pellets. While Borough may have believed it was impractical to wait to step off until the train stopped moving, the railroad was entitled to have the jury evaluate the reasonableness of Borough’s conduct. Accordingly, I dissent.