ST. LOUIS — In a decision affirming a $2.75 million jury verdict, the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled against BNSF Railway Company in a negligence case brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
The court upheld the trial court’s judgment, finding no instructional errors during the trial.
Douglas Overfield, a former BNSF locomotive engineer, sustained severe spinal injuries in February 2018 after his reflective safety vest snagged on a protruding door handle while exiting a locomotive.
The fall left him unable to continue his career, according to the suit.
Overfield argued that the unsafe conditions of the locomotive, combined with the company-issued vest’s design flaws, caused his injuries.
Overfield noted two primary factors leading to his injury: the narrow locomotive doorways and the protruding door handle, coupled with a BNSF policy requiring employees to wear reflective vests while working.
Evidence presented at trial revealed that the zippered vests issued by BNSF had large armholes that were prone to snagging on equipment, and reports of similar incidents were known to the company.
Although tear-away vests were available, they were not mandated, and employees were allowed to choose between tear-away and zippered vests.
Overfield’s claim focused on how the specific combination of the vest design and locomotive features created an unsafe working environment.
BNSF argued that Overfield’s injury stemmed solely from the reflective vest and that no evidence suggested the locomotive design was inherently unsafe.
However, Overfield presented testimony showing the design of the second locomotive exacerbated the danger of snagging while exiting.
At trial, the jury was instructed to assess BNSF’s negligence based on two potential failures: providing reasonably safe working conditions or providing reasonably safe reflective clothing.
BNSF challenged the inclusion of the first basis, arguing it allowed the jury to improperly consider locomotive design flaws that Overfield had not explicitly claimed as negligent.
The court rejected this argument, noting that Overfield presented sufficient evidence showing that the unsafe working conditions and vest design were interconnected.
The court further noted that under FELA’s relaxed standards, even minor employer negligence contributing to an injury could establish liability.
The Missouri Court of Appeals found no errors in the jury instructions or the trial court’s decision to deny BNSF’s proposed withdrawal instruction.
"It is not the role of the trial court to correct a defendant’s erroneous instruction, and BNSF has not shown that the jury’s consideration of the evidence presented at trial of the various aspects of the locomotive in the context of a person wearing the reflective vest at issue was improper," Judge Gary Gaertner Jr. wrote. "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing BNSF’s proposed withdrawal instruction. Point denied."
The court concluded that the jury had adequate evidence to support its verdict and that the instructions did not mislead or confuse jurors.
The appellant was represented by Thomas B. Weaver, Jeffery T. McPherson, Paul L. Brusati, William A. Brasher and Chad M. Knight
The respondent was represented by Nelson G. Wolff, Jerome J. Schlichter and Sean E. Soyars.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED112272