ST. LOUIS — The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals partially affirmed a lower court decision, finding that the Kansas City Southern Railway Company was not entitled to a contributory negligence defense.
The Kansas City Southern Railway Company appealed judgments from November 2022 and January 2023, favoring Christopher Cole in a negligence case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
Judge Robert Clayton III authored the majority opinion and Judge Philip Hess concurred. Judge Cristian Stevens dissented.
The case stemmed from a 2020 workplace accident in which Cole, a railroad employee, fell onto tracks, resulting in severe injuries that led to multiple leg amputations.
The jury awarded Cole $12 million in damages and $15,204.23 in costs.
The railroad's negligence included maintaining a derail sign too close to the tracks, which caused Cole’s fall, violating Illinois regulations and the railroad's internal safety standards.
Additionally, the railroad encouraged employees to board moving equipment, a practice deemed unsafe by experts.
The appeal challenged both the original and amended judgments, particularly objecting to the denial of contributory negligence defenses and the award of post-judgment interest.
The court upheld the November 2022 judgment but reversed the January 2023 amendment regarding post-judgment interest, remanding the case with instructions to void the amended judgment.
In this case, the railroad raised several points on appeal against the trial court's November 2022 judgment, which awarded damages and costs to the plaintiff. The railroad's first seven points argue various errors by the trial court, including the denial of a contributory negligence defense, the admission and exclusion of certain evidence, and the alleged violation of attorney-client privilege.
The appellate court found no error in the trial court's judgment and denied the Railroad's first seven points on appeal.
The railroad also claimed that the trial court erred in excluding a portion of Officer M.V.’s video deposition as speculative and in admitting Superintendent W.C.’s video deposition without a complete exchange, potentially misleading the jury.
The court rejected these claims, noting that the railroad failed to preserve these objections for appeal.
The railroad further challenged the admission of two exhibits by Nurse L.S.
The court ruled that photographs in the exhibits were admissible as they were not hearsay.
However, the railroad’s challenges to L.S.’s statements and the damages chart were not preserved for appellate review, and the court declined to consider them for plain error.
Finally, the railroad argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award post-judgment interest because it was not requested in the original judgment. The court agreed with the railroad on this final point.
"I respectfully dissent from the majority’s resolution of Appellant’s first two points on appeal," Stevens wrote in the dissent.
Stevens noted that he would have reversed the judgment rendered against the railroad as to point I and reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to enter JNOV in favor of the railroad as to point II.
The appellant was represented by JoAnn T. Sandifer, Michael P. Nolan, Mary K. Mullen and Sean P. Hamer.
The respondent is represented by Nelson G. Wolff, Jerome J. Schlichter and Scott M. Gershenson.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED111377, ED111378