Godwin v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 36 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 39 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 9/8/2015. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION

WALTER E. GODWIN,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV513-134

V.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
a corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER

This cause of action is based on Plaintiffs contentions that Defendant is liable
under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq. ("FELA"), for injuries
he sustained when he slipped and fell during the performance of his duties on January
3, 2011, in the rice yard of Defendant's railroad facility in Waycross, Georgia. (Doc. No.
1). Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion in Limine and Defendant's
Response, (dcc. nos. 36, 43), as well as Defendant's Motion in Limine and Plaintiffs
Response. (Doc. Nos. 39, 44). Through their Motions, the parties seek to exclude
several categories of evidence from the trial of this case. The Court rules as follows.
I.

Plaintiffs Motion in Limine
A.

Railroad Retirement Benefits and Other Collateral Sources

Plaintiff asserts any reference or evidence pertaining to his entitlement to,
application for, or his receipt of collateral source benefits, including Railroad Retirement
Benefits, should be excluded from the trial of this case. Plaintiff cites to Eichel v. New
York Cent. R.R. Co., 375 U.S. 253 (1963), as support for his position and posits that
A072A
(Rev. 8/82)

federal courts have "consistently interpreted Eichel to preclude the admission of' this
evidence at the liability or damages phase of a trial in a FELA case. (Doc. 36, p. 2)
(citing cases).
Defendant responds it does not intend to reference or offer this kind of evidence
during the trial of this case unless certain evidence comes to light during trial which
would make this evidence potentially admissible. In addition, Defendant asserts Eichel
pre-dates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which supersede the federal common
law of evidence. Defendant asserts that, depending on Plaintiffs testimony, the
evidence he seeks to exclude may become potentially admissible. In this event,
Defendant maintains, it will request that the Court determine whether this evidence's
probative value outweighs its danger of unfair prejudice. (Doc. 43, pp. 1-2.)
This portion of Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED at this time. Should certain
evidence or testimony come to light during the trial of this case, Plaintiff can object to
Defendant's use of this evidence at the appropriate time.
B.

Plaintiffs Financial Condition

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence pertaining to his assets and financial
condition, including evidence that he receives retirement benefits, he owns and leases
real property, and he owns vehicles. Plaintiff contends evidence of his financial
condition is irrelevant to the issues in this FELA action.
Defendant states it does not intend to offer evidence of Plaintiff's financial
condition at this time and that Plaintiffs Motion on this point should be provisionally
granted. However, Defendant asserts Plaintiffs testimony at trial may lead to this
evidence potentially becoming admissible at trial.

A072A
(Rev 8/82)

1

2

This portion of Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED at this time. Should certain
evidence or testimony come to light during the trial of this case, Plaintiff can object to
Defendant's use of this evidence at that time.

C.

Rule Violations

Plaintiff contends Defendant should not be permitted to present any evidence or
suggestion that Plaintiff violated any of its rules. According to Plaintiff, Defendant has
failed to identify a single rule it definitively claims Plaintiff violated, despite being asked
to do so in interrogatories served last year.
Defendant asserts it should be permitted to introduce evidence regarding specific
safety rules which were in effect on the date of the accident to show the specific training
and knowledge Plaintiff had as to how Defendant expected him to conduct himself on
the date of the accident. Defendant also asserts it answered Plaintiffs interrogatory
request and identified company safety rules and procedures Plaintiff appeared to
violate. Defendant further asserts copies of the safety rules and procedures were
produced to Plaintiff in April 2014, and these rules and procedures were discussed with
Plaintiff during his deposition in August 2014.
This portion of Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED. Defendant may introduce evidence
of the safety rules and procedures it believes Plaintiff may have violated, and Plaintiff
can rebut this evidence. As the parties undoubtedly are aware, evidence of negligence
in a FELA case cuts both ways, but an employee's alleged contributory negligence does
not bar his recovery under FELA. Clements v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 5:11-CV-322 (HL),
2012 WL 5471947, at *6 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 9, 2012) (leaving for a jury's determination

A072A
(Rev. 8/82)

1

3

whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and acted unreasonably, leading to his
injuries).
II.

Defendant's Motion in Limine
A.

Workers' Compensation

Defendant contends Plaintiff should not be permitted to remark that he is not
covered by workers' compensation, as any such remarks may cause the jury to
misconceive that this cause of action is Plaintiffs sole source of benefits. Defendant
avers that this impression is highly prejudicial and would erroneously lead to the
assumption that Plaintiff has received no benefits for his injury, which is incorrect.
Plaintiff responds he would be severely prejudiced if the Court were to prohibit
the jury from knowing the only compensation he will receive from Defendant is if the jury
finds in his favor. Plaintiff contends the jury may be misled into thinking he has already
received workers' compensation benefits and is "double-dipping" by seeking
compensation through this lawsuit. Plaintiff asserts FELA provides his only source for
recovery from his employer for his injuries.
As the undersigned has already determined when faced with the identical motion
in Drvden v. CSX Transp., Inc., Case No. 5:08-cv-047, Doc. No. 20 (Aug. 7, 2009) (S.D.
Ga.), this portion of Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
B.

Financial Condition

Defendant asserts Plaintiff should be restricted from introducing evidence of
either party's financial condition, as such matters are irrelevant in a FELA case. In
addition, Defendant states that its relative wealth, income, the number of employees it
has, and any reference to it as a large corporation should be excluded. Defendant also

A072A
(Rev. 8/82)

4

states Plaintiff should be prohibited from asking potential jurors during voir dire whether
they have heard of Defendant's business interests, including numerous other holding
corporations, subsidiaries, predecessors, or affiliates.
This portion of Defendant's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The parties are precluded from introducing any evidence as to their respective financial
conditions. However, Plaintiffs counsel is permitted to ask potential jurors during voir
dire if they have ever heard of CSX Transportation, Inc.'s, business interests which are
tangentially related to the railroad or whether any of the potential jurors own stock in or
otherwise have a business relationship with Defendant or any of its subsidiaries.

C.

Net Wage Loss

Defendant requests that Plaintiff only be permitted to introduce evidence of any
net losses he may have sustained. Plaintiff agrees that the measure of damages for
lost wages is his net loss, and this portion of Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
However, to the extent Defendant seeks the exclusion of evidence derived from
Plaintiffs W-2 statements and tax returns, this portion of Defendant's Motion is DENIED
for the reasons Plaintiff set forth in his Response.

D.

Pre-Judgment Interest

Defendant asserts Plaintiff should not reference or introduce evidence regarding
pre-judgment interest, as such is not recoverable in FELA cases. This portion of
Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as unopposed.

A072A
(Rev. 8/82)

1

5

E.

Duty of Care

Defendant contends that there should be no reference or statements to the effect
that it has a great duty of care or that Plaintiff has a slight duty of care. Defendant also
contends each party has a duty of reasonable care.
As the parties are required to present evidence and argument in accordance with
the law, this portion of Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff (and Defendant) shall
be precluded from presenting evidence and argument which are contrary to law.
F.

Punitive Comments

Defendant alleges no reference should be made that the purpose of the trial is to
send a message to or punish Defendant. This portion of Defendant's Motion is
GRANTED.
G.

Safer Work Methods/Procedures is not the Standard

Defendant also alleges no reference should be made that it could have provided
a safer method of work or safer procedures to walk on the subject locomotive to cross
over to other equipment. Defendant asserts the issue is whether the workplace and
work method are reasonably safe.
Plaintiff contends FELA imposes a duty on railroads to provide employees with a
reasonably safe place to work at all times and places of employment. Plaintiff also
contends the railroad has a non-delegable duty to inspect for hazards and to take
precautions to protect its employees from unsafe conditions.
This portion of Defendant' Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is permitted to present

evidence regarding the reasonably safe workplace conditions and method which were

A072A
(Rev. 8/82)

1

6

or should have been in place at the time of Plaintiffs alleged injuries. Defendant is, of
course, free to offer evidence in rebuttal.
H.

Congressional Intent

Defendant requests that Plaintiffs counsel refrain from referencing or discussing
the Congressional intent or purpose of FELA in the jury's presence. This portion of
Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as unopposed.
I.

Medical Opinions

Defendant asserts that any expert witness who is not a medical doctor should be
precluded from opining as to the causes of Plaintiffs alleged injuries. This portion of
Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Only witnesses who are qualified to testify about the
medical causation of Plaintiffs injuries will be permitted.
J.

Fear of Retaliation

Defendant requests that Plaintiff and/or his counsel not present evidence,
argument, or comments about alleged improper conduct of Defendant's past
management at the Waycross facility regarding alleged retaliation based on employees'
reports of on-duty injuries. Defendant asserts that these alleged activities occurred
years before Plaintiffs alleged injury, involved managers other than Plaintiffs
managers, and did not involve Plaintiff. Defendant avers that Plaintiff reported his
incident promptly and suffered no retaliatory response by his managers.
Plaintiff alleges FELA entitles employees who suffer physical injuries to recover
emotional distress compensation for any resulting fear which follows the injuries.
Plaintiff maintains the reasonableness of his fear can be proved by the introduction of
evidence relating to how Defendant has retaliated against employees in the past.

A072A
(Rev. 8182)

1

7

This portion of Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.

Evidence related to past

managers and employees is irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims. In Norfolk & Western Ry.
Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135, 142 (2003), which Plaintiff cites in support of his position,
the United States Supreme Court held "that mental anguish damages resulting from the
fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the FELA by a railroad worker
suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to
asbestos." It is a stretch to apply the Ayers holding to the issues and facts before this
Court.
SO ORDERED, this

8

day of September, 2015

VIES F. GRAHAM
ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A( )72\
(Rev 8;82)

8