Lakin v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Citations: 545 N.E.2d 843; 1989 Ind. App. LEXIS 1019; 1989 WL 132163Docket: No. 41A04-8804-CV-124

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; October 31, 1989; Indiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff-appellant Charles H. Lakin, a locomotive engineer, filed a lawsuit against his employer, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), in state court to seek damages for injuries sustained during an emergency exit from a locomotive after it collided with a truck in Marion County, Indiana. Lakin alleged he tripped over a cable on the locomotive floor while exiting, leading to his injuries. He pursued claims under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) for negligence and the Boiler Inspection Act (BIA) for strict liability due to alleged violations of safety regulations.

A jury trial occurred in October 1987, where the trial court granted Conrail's motion for a directed verdict, excluding Lakin's BIA claim from jury consideration but allowing the negligence claim under FELA to proceed. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of Conrail on the FELA claim, which Lakin did not challenge on appeal. His sole contention on appeal was that the trial court incorrectly withdrew the BIA claim from the jury.

The facts reveal that on August 14, 1980, Lakin was conducting track tests with a DOT test train when the collision occurred. The cable in question, part of the testing equipment installed by ENSCO personnel, created a tripping hazard, allegedly violating a regulation under the BIA requiring clear floors in locomotive cabs. Despite Lakin's arguments, the trial court found insufficient evidence to support a violation of the BIA, leading to its exclusion from the jury's deliberation.

Lakin requested the court to reconsider its ruling regarding the applicability of the Boiler Inspection Act (BIA) and sought to delay judgment until all evidence was presented. The trial court granted this request but ultimately found the BIA inapplicable and removed the issue from jury consideration. The court cited the Supreme Court case Southern Railroad Co. v. Lunsford, emphasizing that Congress did not intend for every experimental device placed on a locomotive to be covered under the rule of absolute liability established by the BIA. The trial court concluded that the cable and grips in question were not considered part or appurtenances of the locomotive as defined by the BIA.

Lakin contended that the trial court's ruling was incorrect and that its reliance on Lunsford was inappropriate, asserting that the BIA should apply and that his claim should not have been withdrawn from the jury. The BIA imposes a strict duty on railroads to ensure that locomotives and their components are safe for operation. It is designed to protect employees by mandating the use of safe equipment, with the Secretary of Transportation authorized to set compliance standards. Under the BIA, liability is absolute if an unsafe part is proven to be the proximate cause of an employee's injury, without the need to prove negligence.

The trial court's reliance on Lunsford was scrutinized, as that case determined whether an experimental device on a locomotive was part of the equipment covered by the BIA. The Supreme Court ruled that only integral parts of a locomotive and those prescribed by the Secretary fall under the BIA, while experimental devices that do not increase danger are excluded.

The trial court concluded that a cable used for experimental data collection was a temporary fixture and not a 'part or appurtenance' of the locomotive under the BIA, which was a misinterpretation of the precedent set in Lunsford. In Lunsford, the plaintiff claimed the railroad failed to maintain an experimental device that had become part of the locomotive, but the court dismissed the claim due to the absence of a related rule from the Secretary. In contrast, the current case involves a specific rule requiring locomotive floors to be free from hazards, which Lakin argues was violated by the cable creating a tripping hazard. The trial court wrongly focused on the cable's classification rather than the regulation of the floor, which is integral to the locomotive and subject to inspection. Testimony at trial was conflicting regarding whether the cable posed a tripping risk, with Lakin asserting it was hazardous and Caldwell denying any obstruction. The court must only grant a motion for judgment when there is no conflicting evidence on critical elements of the case. Given the conflicting testimonies, the trial court erred in granting Conrail's motion for judgment on the evidence regarding the BIA claim.

The jury was tasked with determining whether a violation of the Boiler Inspection Act (BIA) occurred and if it was the proximate cause of Lakin's injury. Conrail contended that any potential error in withdrawing Lakin's BIA claim was harmless due to a jury instruction regarding compliance with the Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards, which stated that if Conrail violated the regulation concerning safe flooring conditions, such a violation would constitute negligence. Under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), the plaintiff must prove negligence, while the BIA imposes absolute liability upon proving a violation, regardless of the railroad's care. Conrail argued that the jury instruction did not impose a heavier burden under FELA, thus Lakin was not prejudiced by the BIA claim's withdrawal. Lakin countered that under FELA, contributory negligence could be a defense, which is not applicable under the BIA. He asserted that the jury was instructed on contributory negligence, undermining Conrail's claim of harmless error. Despite this, Conrail argued that the jury’s verdict in favor of Conrail indicated no contributory negligence was found, rendering the BIA claim's withdrawal harmless. The jury had three options for verdicts, ultimately choosing to side with Conrail.

Conrail's claim is partially valid, but the instructions given to the jury did not rectify any prejudicial errors affecting Lakin. The jury received thirty-one final instructions, including that under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a railroad is liable only if negligent, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving such negligence as a failure to exercise reasonable care. The jury was informed that the FELA requires railroads to provide a safe working environment, but they are not liable for all injuries occurring at work; rather, they must exercise ordinary care based on the circumstances at the time.

Contradictory instructions were presented to the jury: they were told to find Conrail negligent if it violated a BIA regulation regarding the safety of locomotive floors, yet also instructed not to find negligence if Conrail exercised reasonable care. The trial court's contradictory guidance left the jury confused about which instruction to apply. Additionally, the BIA imposes a strict duty on railroads to maintain locomotives safely, regardless of care exercised, suggesting that Lakin's claim under the BIA, if properly instructed, might have led to a different verdict.

Conrail contends that any error in withdrawing Lakin's BIA claim is inconsequential due to the alleged intervening negligence of a truck driver, claiming this negates any potential negligence on its part. However, the determination of proximate cause is generally a factual question for the jury, and the court maintains that it cannot assert, as a matter of law, that Conrail's actions were not the proximate cause of Lakin's injury. Lastly, Conrail argues that the trial court correctly withdrew Lakin's BIA claim from the jury as the train was not considered "in use" under the Act.

For the BIA (Federal Boiler Inspection Act) to apply, a locomotive must be 'in use' at the time of an injury. The BIA prohibits carriers from using locomotives that are not engaged in interstate or foreign traffic. Employees performing repairs or services on locomotives are often denied coverage because these locomotives are deemed not 'in use.' Courts have ruled that locomotives involved in activities like opening engine cab doors or undergoing repairs in maintenance areas do not qualify as 'in use' since they are not moving interstate or foreign traffic. 

Conrail contended that its locomotive was not 'in use' because it was assisting in track inspection and not moving commerce. However, the ruling clarifies that locomotives are considered 'in use' unless they have been taken off regular tracks for inspection or repair. A relevant case noted that injuries incurred while switching engines were still covered, as the BIA only excludes injuries from inspection or repair at maintenance facilities.

In this instance, the court determined that the Conrail locomotive was indeed 'in use' since it was on the track conducting DOT inspections, not under repair. The trial court's findings indicated Conrail was engaged in interstate commerce, which warranted jury consideration of Lakin's claim under the BIA. The court reversed the trial court's decision to grant judgment for Conrail and remanded the case for a new trial to allow Lakin to present his claim.

Additionally, the FELA (Federal Employers Liability Act) and BIA are both federal laws related to railroad safety and should be interpreted liberally to fulfill their humanitarian goals. While FELA's liability is based on negligence, the BIA imposes an absolute duty on railroads to maintain locomotives in safe operating condition, with strict liability for any failure to do so.

Claims not maintainable under the Boiler Inspection Act (BIA) may be actionable under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). The BIA, as amended, grants the Secretary of Transportation authority to regulate railroad facilities and safety standards, while Section 51 establishes liability for damages to employees injured due to negligence in railroad operations. Section 23 prohibits the use of unsafe locomotives. The BIA does not provide a direct right of action for injured employees, but violations of the BIA can lead to claims under the FELA, as supported by case law. The Supreme Court has upheld that the BIA complements the FELA, allowing employees injured from BIA violations to file under the FELA. Importantly, an employee need not assert a regulation violation to maintain a suit under the BIA; locomotives may comply with federal regulations yet still be considered unsafe. Liability exists if any locomotive condition poses unnecessary peril to life or limb.