Sebastino v. Springfield Terminal Railway Co.

Filing 118

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered as follows: For the reasons stated, Defendants renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and remittitur (Dkt. No. 103 ) is DENIED. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

Case 3:16-cv-30007-MGM Document 118 Filed 03/24/21 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
GENE SEBASTINO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 16-30007-MGM

SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY CO,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND/OR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(a) AND (e)
(Dkt. No. 103)
March 24, 2021
MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.
INTRODUCTION
After a three-day trial, from March 2 to March 4, 2020, a jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff
Gene Sebastino for negligence and violation of statutory duties under the Federal Employer’s
Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. It awarded damages of $676,689.77 against Defendant
Springfield Terminal Railway Co. Defendant has moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial,
and remittitur. For the reasons discussed below, the court will deny these motions.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Sebastino was employed by Defendant Springfield Terminal Railway on October 9,
2015, when he fell from Locomotive 374 as he attempted to climb down its steps. He testified that
his foot at the top of the steps slipped, causing him to fall and land on the ground onto his tailbone
and then back. He experienced pain and felt he could not move from his position. An ambulance
was called, and he was taken to the hospital.

Case 3:16-cv-30007-MGM Document 118 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 7

A central factual dispute was whether oil was present on the locomotive by the steps, which
would be a basis for finding Defendant negligent. Photographs were taken and inspections were
conducted by other railroad employees after the incident. The photographs showed wet spots on the
platform at the top of the stairs. Railroad employees testified that the wetness was due to water from
rain. Plaintiff himself testified that he did not recall seeing oil on the platform or the steps at the
time of his fall. Similarly, during an interview the day after the incident, Plaintiff had reported oil on
other parts of the locomotive, but not by the steps. In addition, when the court allowed Plaintiff to
re-open his case after Defendant had rested, Plaintiff testified he had previous experience with
slipping both on oil and water and each felt different underfoot. He said that the slip during the
incident had felt like oil. The evidence also included an ambulance call sheet, which indicated
Plaintiff had told ambulance workers at the time they arrived on the scene that he had slipped on oil.
A record by Plaintiff’s primary doctor, who saw Plaintiff the week after the incident, indicated that
Plaintiff had slipped on grease. Plaintiff’s counsel also presented evidence that oil is commonly
present on locomotives because exhaust oil is expelled out of the stacks of locomotives.
Also presented at trial was the fact that two days earlier, on October 7, an inspection had
been performed that found oil present on the handrails and walkways of Locomotive 374, which
was reflected in an inspection report of the same date. A railroad engineer’s testimony indicated that
the oil had been wiped down. However, there was no formal report that recorded the cleanup of the
oil. The next report to follow was dated October 9, which was written shortly before midnight and
about five hours after Plaintiff’s fall. 1 This was despite the fact Defendant was required, under the
Locomotive Inspection Act, to inspect each of its locomotives in use at least once a day and to

1

The parties stipulated to the fact that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of his injuries and
requested Defendant to preserve all inspection reports for Locomotive 374 about one month after
the incident, on November 5, 2015.
2

Case 3:16-cv-30007-MGM Document 118 Filed 03/24/21 Page 3 of 7

maintain daily inspection records.
Plaintiff testified that after the incident he experienced pain in his lower back that radiated
down to his legs. He continued to experience pain, and at times was unable to walk due to it.
Plaintiff saw a couple of orthopedic specialists and was treated with spinal injections, a surgery in
2018, and a second surgery in 2019. Until his second surgery, Plaintiff had been under physical
restrictions from lifting, bending, and other rigorous activity. After the second surgery, Plaintiff was
cleared to work full duty, although by trial Defendant had still not brought Plaintiff back to work.
Evidence was also presented that after the fall from the locomotive, Plaintiff helped his ailing father
with his auto business, including doing light repairs and driving a tow truck. Plaintiff testified he did
not make any money from this work.
The jury found Defendant liable for injuries caused to Plaintiff due to negligence in failing to
provide a safe place to work and violation of statutory duties under the Locomotive Inspection Act.
The jury awarded Plaintiff $326,689.77 for loss of earnings, $300,000 for past pain and suffering, and
$50,000 for future pain and suffering.
STANDARDS FOR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW,
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND MOTION FOR REMITTITUR
Rule 50 “is one of the judicial control devices provided by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure so that the district court may enforce rules of law. It allows the court to remove from the
jury’s consideration cases or issues when the facts are sufficiently clear that the law requires a
particular result.” 9B C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedures § 2521 (3d ed.);
Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 447–48 (2000). Scrutiny of the jury verdict is “tightly
circumscribed.” Suero-Algarin v. CMT Hospital Hima San Pablo Caguas, 957 F.3d 30, 37 (1st Cir. 2020)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A “verdict should be set aside only if the jury failed to reach the
only result permitted by the evidence.” Lestage v. Coloplast Corp., 982 F.3d 37, 46 (1st Cir. 2020).
“[F]acts are construed in the light most favorable to the jury verdict,” and “any inferences are drawn
3

Case 3:16-cv-30007-MGM Document 118 Filed 03/24/21 Page 4 of 7

in favor of the non-movant.” Blomquist v. Horned Dorset Primavera, Inc., 925 F.3d 541, 546 (1st Cir.
2019). The court does not evaluate the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Id.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the court may override a jury verdict and order a
new trial “if the verdict is against the law, against the weight of the credible evidence, or tantamount
to a miscarriage of justice.” Teixeira v. Town of Coventry ex rel. Przybyla, 882 F.3d 13, 16 (1st Cir. 2018)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “A district court’s power to grant a motion for a new trial is
much broader than its power to grant a JMOL” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. Jennings v.
Jones, 587 F.3d 430, 436 (1st Cir. 2009). The court is free to independently weigh evidence. Id.
However, the court “cannot displace a jury’s verdict merely because [it] disagrees” or “because a
contrary verdict may have been equally . . . supportable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The
“remedy of a new trial is sparingly used, and then only where there would be a miscarriage of justice
and where the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” U.S. v. Merlino, 592 F.3d 22, 32
(1st Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In addition, it is “within the district court’s discretion to order a remittitur if such an action is
warranted in light of the evidence adduced at trial.” Climent-Garcia v. Autoridad de Transporte Maritimo y
Las Islas Municipio, 754 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To warrant
remittitur, however, the award must exceed any rational appraisal or estimate of the damages that
could be based upon the evidence before it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The evidence is
assessed in the light most favorable to the jury’s award, drawing all reasonable inferences in support
of the award. Id.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law centers on the argument that there was
insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that oil was present on or next to the steps of
the locomotive. The court disagrees. The jury had evidence that the presence of oil was a common

4

Case 3:16-cv-30007-MGM Document 118 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 7

occurrence on locomotives, the area from which Plaintiff slipped was wet, oil had recently been
found on the handrails and walkways of Locomotive 374, and no formal record was made of the oil
being cleaned. In fact, daily inspection records were missing from around the time of the incident,
despite Defendant’s legal duties to maintain such records, and the court instructed the jury that it
was permitted to draw an adverse inference regarding such missing evidence. In addition, the jury
had evidence of Plaintiff’s belief, contemporaneous with the incident, that he had slipped on oil as
communicated to the medical workers who responded to the emergency. The evidence of oil was
wholly circumstantial rather than direct, but that does not mean it was insufficient. Rogers v. Missouri
Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 508 n.17 (1957) (noting, in a FELA case, that “[c]ircumstantial evidence is
not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.”).
While there was evidence weighing against the presence of oil, as Defendant points out, it is not the
court’s role to independently reweigh the evidence where a reasonable jury could conclude as it did
based on the evidence, as is the case here.
Defendant also takes issue with the fact the court allowed Plaintiff to reopen his case. In
deciding whether to reopen the record, a court should consider “whether (1) the evidence sought to
be introduced is especially important and probative; (2) the moving party’s explanation for failing to
introduce the evidence earlier is bona fide; and (3) reopening will cause no undue prejudice to the
non-moving party.” Davignon v. Hodgson, 524 F.3d 91, 113–14 (1st Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s request to
reopen his case or present a rebuttal arose out of the fact Defendant did not put a particular railroad
employee, Norman Yelin, on the stand during the presentation of its case, which was perhaps due to
a misunderstanding between counsel. The court allowed Plaintiff’s counsel to read in the witness’s
deposition testimony and, in addition, to call Plaintiff back to the stand. With respect to the
introduction of Yelin’s deposition testimony, the court finds it was appropriate considering the
dispute on what counsel had agreed to regarding his availability and taking of the stand. With respect

5

Case 3:16-cv-30007-MGM Document 118 Filed 03/24/21 Page 6 of 7

to Plaintiff’s additional testimony, the court finds there was no prejudice to Defendant. Even
disregarding Plaintiff’s additional testimony, the court finds there was sufficient evidence for the jury
to conclude that oil was present and caused Plaintiff’s fall.
Accordingly, the court finds no reason to order judgment as a matter of law for Defendant.
Nor does the court see any reason to grant a new trial as it does not find the verdict to be contrary
to the clear weight of the evidence.
Finally, the court denies the motion for remittitur. The evidence was sufficient to support
the damages awarded by the jury. The court agrees that the award appears to be on the high end, but
not so much that it exceeds any rational appraisal or estimate of the damages. Defendant’s argument
regarding lost earnings rests on the fact that Plaintiff worked for his father’s business, showing he
was not totally disabled from gainful employment and could have mitigated his damages. Therefore,
Defendant argues, it was against the clear weight of the evidence for the jury to award the full
amount Plaintiff would have earned as Defendant’s employee without any deduction. Given that it
was Defendant’s burden to prove issues of mitigation, the court is not sufficiently persuaded by the
generalities of Defendant’s arguments to second guess the jury’s assessment. Defendant’s argument
regarding damages awarded for future pain and suffering focuses on his doctor’s testimony that
Plaintiff appeared to have made a complete recovery by September 2019. Plaintiff’s response points
to his testimony that he still gets sore when standing for a long time and sometimes feels achy and
stiff, and the fact he is expected to live for another thirty to forty years. The court is satisfied that the
jury’s award is within reason.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of
law, new trial, and remittitur (Dkt. No. 103) is DENIED.
It is So Ordered.

6

Case 3:16-cv-30007-MGM Document 118 Filed 03/24/21 Page 7 of 7

/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni
MARK G. MASTROIANNI
United States District Judge

7