Brent McFarland v. BNSF Railway Co ( 2015 )

FILED
JULY 9, 2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
BRENT McFARLAND, ) No. 32066-9-111
)
Appellant, )
)
v. )
)
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RAILWAY COMPANY, )
)
Respondent. )
BROWN, J. - Brent McFarland appeals the trial court's denial of his CR 50 motion
for a new jury trial after he lost his negligence suit against Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway Company (BNSF). He contends the trial court erred in denying his new trial
motion because it should have denied BNSF's limine motions excluding witnesses and
an exhibit. We conclude any error was harmless and affirm.
FACTS
Mr. McFarland began working for BNSF's Pasco facility in 1994 as a railcar
mechanic, or carman. A carman's responsibility is to install heavy cross keys that hold
couplers onto railcars. Most cross keys slide in by hand. For those that do not slide in
easily, a sledgehammer is normally used to finish the task. When Mr. McFarland first
began working for BNSF, carmen used sledgehammers up to 22 pounds. In the late
1
i
No. 32066-9-111
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
1990s, however, BNSF limited sledgehammer weight to 12 pounds for safety reasons.
Carmen complained the lighter sledgehammers actually made the task more physically
strenuous because more force was needed with a higher frequency of hits.
In December 2009, Mr. McFarland injured his shoulder while using a
sledgehammer to install a 55-pound cross key. A 2007 Job Safety Analysis (JSA)
discussed the task of cross key removal and installation at the Pasco repair track. This
JSA was in effect at the time of Mr. McFarland's 2009 injury. The JSA explained the
proper use of a sledgehammer to install the key and identified the potential hazards of
"pinch point" and "possible back strain or sprains." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 723.
In January 2012, Mr. McFarland sued BNSF under the Federal Employers
Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, that creates a cause of action on behalf of a
railroad worker against his or her employer. 45 U.S.C. § 51. Mr. McFarland's FELA
complaint alleged BNSF negljgently failed to provide him with a safe work environment,
safe equipment, safe methods, adequate help, proper supervision, and failed to warn
him that his work duties could cause cumulative injuries.
On August 6,2013, Mr. McFarland filed a trial management report, listing Robert
Russell, Ed Holm, and Andrew Pillar as witnesses. The men are BNSF employees from
other offices who would allegedly testify about the use of a hydraulic pusher for cross
key installation, BNSF moved in limine (number 13), asking the court to exclude these
witnesses as not properly disclosed. The court granted the motion, noting "this case
was filed by the plaintiff in January 2012. The ... amended case scheduling order
2
No. 32066-9-111
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
which over all indicated discovery completion for all parties June 3rd 2013[.]" Report of
Proceedings (RP) at 50. The court ruled, "Given this record, it seems appropriate to
grant defendant's motion in limine number 13." RP at 50. Testimony from the three
men was excluded.
Mr. McFarland sought admission of exhibit 14, a 2011-2012 JSA on an Omega
hydraulic cross key installer. BNSF moved in limine (number 5), asking the court to
exclude reference to documents not in effect at the time of the incident under ER 401,
402, and 403, including exhibit 14. Mr. McFarland responded that the 2011-2012 JSA
described the "alternative method" to sledgehammers and was "relevant" and "therefore
admissible." CP at 706. The court granted BNSF's motion to exclude exhibit 14 and
later sustained a BNSF objection to testimony regarding the 2011-2012 JSA.
During trial, Mr. McFarland testified the Pasco facility received a hydraulic
installer "sometime around 2010, 2011." RP at 242. A Pasco BNSF employee testified
the facility had received a hydraulic installer but it was not being utilized because it
needed "the proper hoses or manifold." RP at 167. A Pasco BNSF supervisor, who
previously worked with Mr. Russell in Vancouver, testified the two came up with an idea
for a hydraulic installer when BNSF discontinued its use of sledgehammers over 12
pounds. A BNSF consultant acknowledged the hydraulic installer was being utilized at
some facilities, but discounted its significance. Finally, during cloSing arguments, Mr.
McFarland's attorney argued the hydraulic installer was at the Pasco office but sat in a
corner unused.
3
No. 32066-9-111
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
The jury found no negligence. Mr. McFarland unsuccessfully requested a new
trial based on, the court's granting of motions in limine 13 and 5. He appealed.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether the trial court erred by abusing its discretion in excluding
the testimony of Mr. Russell, Mr. Holm, and Mr. Pillar under BNSF's limine motion
number 13, and excluding exhibit 14 in response to limine motion number 5. '
First, we turn to witness exclusion. Mr. McFarland contends the trial court's
failure to consider on the record the factors in Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131
Wn.2d 484,933 P.2d 1036 (1997), before imposing a discovery sanction amounts to an
abuse of discretion and requires reversal.
A trial court's rulings on discovery sanctions and motions in limine are reviewed
for abuse of discretion. Burnet, 131 Wn.2d at 494 (discovery sanctions); State v.
Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244,258,893 P.2d 615 (1995) (motions in limine). Abuse of
discretion occurs where the trial court's action is manifestly unreasonable, or exercised
on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons. Olver v. Fowler, 161 Wn.2d 655, 663,
168 P.3d 348 (2007).
Under Franklin County LCR 4(h)(1)(A), "Each party shall, no later than the date
for disclosure designated in the Case Schedule, disclose all persons with relevant
factual or expert knowledge whom the party believes are reasonably likely to be called
at triaL" Further, U[a]ny person not disclosed in compliance with this rule may not be
called to testify at trial." LCR 4(h)(1)(D). But, our Supreme Court has concluded that
4
I~4
,!
l No. 32066-9-111
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
I
'l
before the trial court may exclude a witness as a discovery sanction, the court must
specify the reason for the sanction on the record. Blair v. TA-Seattle No. 176, 171
1 Wn.2d 342,344,254 P.3d 797 (2011). Specifically, "'it must be apparent from the
1
t record that the trial court explicitly considered whether a lesser sanction would probably
have sufficed,' and whether it found that the disobedient party's refusal to obey a
discovery order was willful or deliberate and substantially prejudiced the opponent's
ability to prepare for trial." Burnet, 131 Wn.2d at 494 (quoting Snedigar v. Hodderson,
53 Wn. App. 476, 487, 768 P.2d 1 (1989), aff'd in part. rev'd in part, 114 Wn.2d 153,
786 P.2d 781 (1990)). The failure to address the Burnet factors is an abuse of
discretion. Blair, 171 Wn.2d at 344.
Additionally, in Teter v. Deck, 174 Wn.2d 207, 274 P.3d 336 (2012). our
Supreme Court reiterated that striking a plaintiff's witness as a discovery sanction was
an abuse of discretion where the trial court's order contained no finding that the
plaintiff's discovery violation was willful or that the court explicitly considered lesser
sanctions. Teter, 174 Wn.2d at 218-22. The court explained, "A trial court may make
the Burnet findings on the record orally or in writing .... Thus, where an order
excluding a witness is entered without oral argument or a colloquy on the record,
findings on the Burnet factors must be made in the order itself or in some
contemporaneous recorded finding." Teter, 174 Wn.2d at 217 (citation omitted).
Mr. McFarland filed a trial management report, listing Mr. Russell, Mr. Holm, and
Mr. Pillar as witnesses just days before trial. The court had previously ordered all
5
I
t
I
No. 32066-9-111
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
!
discovery to be completed over a month prior. BNSF filed a motion in limine (number t
13), asking the court to exclude these witnesses as not properly disclosed. The court
granted the motion, noting "this case was filed by the plaintiff in January 2012" and
discovery was to be complete "for all parties June 3rd 2013[.]" RP at 50. The court
then briefly ruled, "Given this record, it seems appropriate to grant defendant's motion in
limine number 13." RP at 50. Based on Burnett, Blair, and Teter, this basis is not
sufficient to justify the exclusion because the court did not consider the Burnet factors.
The lack of consideration of the Burnet factors on the record is an abuse of discretion. I
But BNSF correctly argues the error in excluding the witnesses is harmless.
"The erroneous exclusion of a party's witnesses is reversible error unless the error was
harmless." In re Dependency of M.P., 185 Wn. App. 108, 118,340 P.3d 908 (2014)
(citing Jones v. City of Seattle, 179 Wn.2d 322, 356, 314 P.3d 380 (2013)). In Jones,
our Supreme Court applied, for the first time, a harmless error analysis to a Burnet
violation. The court held the error in Jones was harmless because the excluded
testimony was largely irrelevant or cumulative. Jones, 179 Wn.2d at 356-57.
Ample testimony from multiple witnesses showed the existence of a hydraulic
installer at the Pasco facility after Mr. McFarland's injury, but the installer was not being
utilized. A BNSF supervisor testified he and Mr. Russell came up with an idea for a
hydraulic installer, and that some facilities were now using the hydraulic installer
developed by Mr. Russell. Finally, Mr. McFarland's counsel was able to and did argue
his theory that a hydraulic installer was safer for the employees. Based on the above,
6
No. 32066-9-111
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
additional testimony would largely be cumulative. Under Jones, when the excluded
testimony is largely cumulative, like here, then a Burnet violation is harmless. The
court's ruling did not amount to reversible error. 1 Next, we turn to proposed exhibit 14.
Second, Mr. McFarland contends the trial court erred in granting BNSF's motion
in limine 5 (proposed exhibit 14) and sustaining objections to testimony about the JSA
because this document was relevant to establish negligence. BNSF objected to Exhibit
14 under ER 401,402, and 403. Therefore, we apply ER 401 and ER 402's relevancy
tests and ER 403's probative value test to determine whether the trial court abused its
discretion in excluding the 2011-2012 JSA and testimony relating to it.
To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. ER 402. Evidence is relevant if it
has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence." ER 401. "Evidence is relevant if a logical nexus exists between the
evidence and the fact to be established." State v. Burkins, 94 Wn. App. 677, 692, 973
P.2d 15 (1999). Nevertheless, even relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." ER 403.
U[I]n FELA cases an employer is neither required to furnish the employee with the
latest, best or most perfect appliance with which to work, nor to discard standard
1 We note the cumulative nature of the testimony from these witnesses, provided
the trial court with additional tenable grounds to grant BNSF's motion in limine. See
State v. McCarthy, 178 Wn. App. 90, 103,312 P.3d 1027 (2013) ("because the
evidence was cumulative ... the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it."
(citation omitted).
7
I
l No. 32066-9-111
1
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
I
appliances already in use that are reasonably safe and suitable, even though later
1 improvements have been discovered." Soto v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 514 F.
I1
, Supp. 1,401'1.0. Tex. 1979), affd, 644 F.2d 1147 (1981). The existence of a more
I suitable or safer tool is irrelevant if it is not shown that the tool used is unsafe. Soto,
J
i 514 F. Supp. at 4; Seeberger v. Burlington N. R. Co., 138 Wn.2d 815, 826, 982 P.2d
j
1149 (1999) (Madsen, J. dissenting).
I
1j
Here, the 2007 JSA was in effect when Mr. McFarland was injured; it
recommended the use of a sledgehammer to install a cross key. Mr. McFarland claims
II
the hydraulic installer would have been safer or easier. But, under Soto, the existence
of a new tool is irrelevant in a FELA action if the existing tool used is not shown to be
unsafe. Mr. McFarland cannot show the 2011-2012 JSA was relevant to negligence,
because he did not establish the 12-pound sledgehammers were unsafe. Mr.
McFarland failed to produce evidence of injuries from the 12-pound sledgehammers
(other than his own) at BNSF or other railroads; no expert testified repetitive
sledgehammer swinging presented ergonomic risks BNSF should have investigated or
that BNSF failed to follow any safety management principles; and Mr. McFarland's
medical expert did not testify that sledgehammers were unsafe. Significantly, "hindsight
is not the test for foreseeability." First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A v. Murphy, Weir
& Butler, 210 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir.) (2000). And, '''reasonable foreseeability of harm
is an essential ingredient of Federal Employers' Liability Act negligence.'" Seeberger,
8
No. 32066-9-111
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
138 Wn.2d at 823 (quoting Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 117,83
S. Ct. 659, 9 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1963».
Becaus~ the 2011-2012 JSA was produced after Mr. McFarland's injury and
there was no showing the sledgehammer Mr. McFarland used was unsafe, there is no
logical nexus between the evidence and the fact to be established; and there is no
probative value. Thus, under ER 401, ER 402, and ER 403, the evidence was irrelevant
and inadmissible. This provided the trial court with tenable grounds to grant BNSF's
motion in limine 5.
Given all, both sides presented evidence about the hydraulic installer, with BNSF
minimizing its usefulness and Mr. McFarland bolstering its usefulness. Both parties
were allowed to argue their theory of the case. Witness credibility and the weight to be
given evidence is left to the province of the jury. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123
Wn.2d 93, 107,864 P.2d 937 (1994). Mr. McFarland fails to show evidentiary error that
warrants the overturning of a jury verdict.
Lastly, Mr. McFarland argues the trial court erred by abusing its discretion in
denying his request for a new trial. Mr. McFarland bases his assertion on the previously
discussed assignments of error. We review a trial court's denial of a motion for a new
trial for abuse of discretion. Hickok-Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 170 Wn. App. 279,
324,284 P.3d 749 (2012), review denied, 176 Wn.2d 1014 (2013). Based on the
discussion above, the court's evidentiary rulings did not amount to reversible error.
9
No. 32066-9-111
McFarland v. BNSF Ry. Co.
Accordingly, the court had tenable grounds to deny Mr. McFarland's motion for a new
trial and did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Brown, A.C.J.
WE CONCUR:
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
10