Ruark v Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 60

ORDER granting 53 MOTION in Limine "Defendant's General Motion in Limine" filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company, 52 MOTION in Limine "Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Testimony Regarding the Cause of the Rail Drill Failure" filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/11/17. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANNY R. RUARK,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 14-cv-329-DRH-RJD

UNION PACIFIC RAIROAD
COMPANY,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are two motions in limine brought by Defendant
Union Pacific Railroad (Docs. 52 & 53).

For the reasons stated below, the

motions are granted.
In the first motion in limine, defendant seeks to exclude plaintiff’s
testimony regarding the cause of the rail drill failure (Doc. 52). Defendant argues
that plaintiff is not qualified to offer opinions regarding the cause of the failure of
the rail drill. In the alternative, defendant argues that even if the plaintiff were
qualified to offer such an opinion, his opinion would be wholly speculative, given
that the plaintiff never examined the drill after the alleged incident to determine
what happened. Plaintiff has filed no response to the motion.
In the second in limine titled “Defendant’s General Motion in Limine,”
defendant seeks to prohibit the plaintiff, plaintiff’s attorney and plaintiff’s
witnesses from exploring the following evidentiary matters at trial: (1) any injuries
Page 1 of 3

to other Union Pacific workers, unless a sufficient foundation is laid that said
injuries occurred in a substantially similar manner as those plaintiff suffered; (2)
statements or evidence about allegedly unsafe conditions not causally related to
the issues involved in this case; (3) statements or evidence concerning a claim for
damages associated with any possible future medical care or treatment without
the proper foundation; (4) statements or evidence that plaintiff felt intimidated or
threatened for reporting a personal injury; (5) any comment, argument or
suggestion that this lawsuit is plaintiff’s exclusive remedy and/or that plaintiff is
not eligible to receive worker’s compensation benefits; (6) any comment, argument
or suggestion concerning the purpose, policy or intent of Congress in enacting the
Federal Employers’ Liability Act; (7) any argument, comment or suggestion that
the jurors place themselves in the position of plaintiff when assessing damages;
and (8) any argument, comment or suggestion that the jurors act as safety
advocates in this lawsuit, or that they send a message to the corporate defendant
with their verdict (Doc. 53). Defendant argues that these matters lack of
relevance; are immaterial to any issue in the lawsuit; are more prejudicial than
probative; may lead to confusion of the issues; are improper and inflammatory;
and may mislead the jury (Doc. 53). Plaintiff has filed no response.
On the basis that the plaintiff filed no response to the defendant’s motions
in limine, and therefore seemingly does not object to the pending motions, the
Court, at this juncture, interprets plaintiff’s lack of a response as a concession on

Page 2 of 3

the merits of the motions. Therefore, the defendant’s motions in limine are
GRANTED (Docs. 52 & 53).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 11th day of April, 2017.

Judge Herndon
2017.04.11
11:05:04 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3