Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 27, 2003; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Penny Porche Dehart and others (the Deharts) appealed a verdict favoring Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), which found no liability in a wrongful death suit following the death of Rustie Dehart after a collision at the Lagarde railroad crossing in Boutte, Louisiana. On May 21, 1998, Dehart was operating a tractor-trailer rig when it was struck by a BNSF train, leading to fatal injuries. The Deharts alleged that the crossing's defective design and maintenance, along with negligent train operation, caused the accident. The trial, held in August 2002, concluded with a jury finding no negligence on BNSF's part regarding the train's operation, the crossing's design, or maintenance. On appeal, the Deharts contended that the trial court improperly excluded evidence related to the maintenance and control of the crossing and expert testimony on safe design standards. They also argued the jury erred in its negligence finding. BNSF owned the property and had a right-of-way extending 35 feet from the track's center. The crossing served as a private driveway to Dr. Edmond Jeansonne's property, which was under development for a wildlife preserve. Testimony indicated that while BNSF maintained the right-of-way, it did not maintain the approach to the crossing. Witnesses noted that prior to the accident, there were no reported issues with the crossing.
Mr. Brooks observed the train accident from atop his vehicle, located 200-300 yards from the tracks. He noted that Mr. Dehart, who was trying to maneuver his truck across the tracks, struggled for about five minutes and could not see the train due to trees obstructing his view. Brooks believed the train was traveling faster than 45 mph and was unsure if Dehart was stuck on the tracks. Investigating officer Conley Martin reported that the train struck Dehart's trailer mid-point and that truck drivers had indicated via CB radio that crossing the tracks was easier on the eastbound side, where Dehart attempted to cross. No signage indicated this, and the roadway showed no defects. The train’s crew showed no signs of intoxication, and they reported traveling at approximately 45 mph and attempted to brake before impact. Visibility was estimated at a quarter-mile, suggesting Dehart could have seen the train in time to yield. Witnesses claimed the trailer was stationary on the tracks when Dehart noticed the train. The accident report indicated that Dehart failed to yield, while no violations were noted for the train. Land surveyor John Mattingly noted that the southwest ramp leading to the tracks was 75 feet long with a height difference of 5.5 feet from the roadway to the rail. Dehart's employer, Eric Jones, stated that this was Dehart's first visit to the site, and he had a good work record. Civil engineer Dr. Ken Heathington evaluated the crossing and found low vehicular traffic, a lack of prior accidents, and inadequate sight distance, despite the presence of two cross buck signs that did not meet AASHTO standards.
The traffic control devices at the crossing were limited, with maximum train speeds set at seventy miles per hour for passenger trains and sixty for freight trains. Mr. Dehart's sight distance calculations indicated significant sight deficiencies of 97.9% and 98.7% in the Northeast and Northwest quadrants, respectively, preventing the driver from seeing an approaching train. However, these sight distance issues were not identified as a cause of the accident. Dr. Heathington attributed the primary issue to the road surface and grading, noting that the grade violated standards with a six-foot drop and a short turning radius, which impeded Dehart's ability to maneuver the truck properly.
Expert Jim Scott noted that while event recorders should document locomotive actions, none were available to provide relevant data for the incident. He emphasized the importance of the whistle being blown continuously until the train occupied the crossing, but the conductor reportedly stopped blowing the whistle just before the impact. Scott opined that had the warning continued for a few seconds longer, it might have allowed Dehart time to escape the truck.
Tim Huya, a BNSF manager, clarified that regardless of ownership, maintenance responsibilities for railroad crossings are consistent, with private landowners responsible for the driveway approach within two feet of the rail. The railroad maintains the area between the rails and extends two feet beyond, but does not manage the roadway itself. BNSF conducts regular inspections for hazards but will only address private driveway issues when notified.
No unsafe conditions were reported at the property prior to the trial. Mr. Huya inspected the site and photographs, finding no issues. BNSF, after acquiring trackage rights from Southern Pacific five months before the accident, inspected the track and reported no problems at the crossing. BNSF installed crossing boards but did not design the crossing itself. Engineer Edward Blondell testified that the train was traveling at 45 miles per hour and that he activated the whistle and bell at a whistle board a quarter mile from the crossing. Upon approaching, he spotted a truck on the tracks and immediately initiated an emergency stop while continuing to sound the whistle. The truck's trailer obstructed the tracks, but the driver attempted to maneuver, first backing up and then moving forward to clear the track before the train collided. Blondell lay down just before impact. Conductor Chad Fisher noted no issues with the train's brakes or track conditions post-accident.
Dr. William Fogarty, an expert witness, opined that the truck driver, Mr. Dehart, had opportunities to avoid the accident, measuring visibility distances and factoring the train's speed. He stated the train was visible and audible from a distance of 750 to 900 feet, and Dehart should have noticed it. Dr. Fogarty criticized Dehart's attentiveness, asserting he had a duty to observe his surroundings, including listening for the whistle. He concluded that the train crew could not have avoided the accident and that Dehart's actions were unreasonable, as he was not trapped by circumstances. Fogarty found no excessive steepness at the crossing and indicated that the presence of a heavy load would not impair the truck's maneuverability.
Local dirt road design standards are less stringent than those for major highways. The 'Y' shape of an approach decreases the road grade, which was not deemed a factor in the accident, nor did it violate design standards. AASHTO standards, referenced by Dr. Heathington, pertain to major highways and do not apply to low-volume roads. If the train had been positioned 650 feet earlier, it would have halted before the point of impact. Mr. Bobby Lilly, a nearby resident, observed the crossing and noted that Mr. Dehart maneuvered his truck onto the ramp and remained there for 15 to 20 minutes without attempting an alternate route. When the train approached, Lilly heard the whistle and saw the truck parked on the track for 8 to 10 minutes. He indicated that, had Dehart looked left, he would have seen the train, and believed the truck was not stuck. After the collision, Lilly thought the truck had moved since the train struck the trailer, not the cab. Expert Gary Wolf, specializing in train operation, calculated that the train could not have seen the truck until it rounded a curve, estimating the stopping distance at 1660 feet, with brakes applied 1000 feet before impact. Wolf found no fault with the crew's actions and confirmed that the timing of the whistle was consistent with protocol. On appeal, the Deharts argue the trial court incorrectly excluded evidence regarding the maintenance and control of the Lagarde crossing, specifically Dr. Jeansonne's testimony about Burlington Railroad Corporation placing ties on his property without permission.
The Deharts argue that the trial court improperly excluded testimony from Dr. Heathington regarding BNSF’s maintenance of other crossings, which he examined for safety standards. BNSF objected, stating that the relevance was not established due to the Lagarde crossing being a private driveway compared to public crossings. Mr. Huya confirmed that BNSF treats private and public crossings similarly. Under LSA-R.S. 45:323, railroads are required to maintain crossings up to two feet beyond the rails when on public streets. The Deharts also claim the court should have allowed Dr. Jeansonne’s rebuttal testimony against Mr. Huya’s assertion that BNSF's maintenance duty extended only to two feet. Dr. Jeansonne believed the railroad was responsible for the approach but had no complaints about its maintenance, which Mr. Huya corroborated.
The court employs a duty-risk analysis to determine liability, requiring proof that the defendant's conduct caused harm, owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the risk of harm fell within the duty's protection scope. The Deharts alleged BNSF failed to maintain the Lagarde crossing, which BNSF acknowledged but denied any breach. Relevant evidence is defined under La. C.E. Art. 401 as evidence that affects the likelihood of a consequential fact. The court found Dr. Jeansonne’s opinion on maintenance obligations irrelevant to the issues of duty and breach. Consequently, Dr. Heathington’s suggestions for improving the crossing were also deemed irrelevant, as they did not materially affect the duty and breach analysis. The Deharts claimed BNSF failed to provide documentation proving the landowner's responsibility for approach maintenance, but the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs, and no evidence indicated BNSF had responsibilities beyond statutory requirements. Vegetation control was performed at the site, and no issues were reported to BNSF. Although a voluntary duty must be performed non-negligently, the record showed BNSF met its legal obligations. The trial judge's discretion regarding evidence admission or exclusion will not be overturned unless there is an abuse of that discretion.
The trial court's decision to exclude contested testimony was upheld, as no abuse of discretion was found. The plaintiffs, the Deharts, argued that the court erred by not instructing the jury on the 'dangerous trap' doctrine. However, their general objection to this omission was insufficient, as specific grounds for objection were not stated, leading to the issue being waived. The Deharts also contended that the jury's finding of no negligence by BNSF in the design and operation of the Lagarde crossing was manifestly erroneous. An appellate court cannot overturn jury findings unless there is 'manifest error' or a finding is 'clearly wrong.' The court outlined a two-part analysis for such cases: first, determining if there is a reasonable factual basis for the jury's findings, and second, confirming that the findings are clearly erroneous. The jury's conclusion that BNSF was not negligent was supported by evidence, including eyewitness accounts and expert testimonies indicating that Mr. Dehart may have been inattentive prior to the accident. Testimony confirmed that the train was not speeding and that visibility was adequate. Given the evidence, the jury's findings were deemed reasonable and not clearly wrong. Therefore, the judgment dismissing BNSF was affirmed, and BNSF's appeal regarding Dr. Jeansonne was dismissed as moot.
