Irby, et al. v. Travis
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00414-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00414-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-25-2006 Opinion Author: CARLSON, JUSTICE Holding: ON DIRECT APPEAL: REVERSED AND REMANDED. ON CR |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Sufficiency of evidence - Evidence of prior accidents - Admission of evidence - Jury instruction - Punitive damages Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY AND DICKINSON, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. Dissent Joined By : DIAZ, J., RANDOLPH, J. JOINS IN PART Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Randolph, J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-17-2003 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Jury returned a verdict in favor of the Appellee & awarded damages Case Number: 97-0321 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ARTHUR IRBY AND ILLINOIS CENTRAL
RAILROAD COMPANY |
GLENN F. BECKHAM, HARRIS FREDERICK POWERS, EDWARD BLACKMON, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | MARY TRAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL TRAVIS, DECEASED, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF MICHAEL TRAVIS, DECEASED | DONNA BROWN JACOBS, ANITA K. MODAK-TRURAN, JOHN C. HENEGAN, DENNIS C. SWEET, III, ALYSON LEE BUSTAMANTE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Sufficiency of evidence - Evidence of prior accidents - Admission of evidence - Jury instruction - Punitive damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Travis was driving his truck in a westerly direction toward a rural Holmes County grade crossing known as Mileston crossing. At the same time, a farm tractor was approaching the Mileston crossing, traveling in an easterly direction, and approaching the grade crossing from the west. Michael stopped at the tracks, backed up to allow the farm tractor to cross over, and then proceeded on to the tracks, where his truck collided with a southbound Illinois Central train. As a result of Michael’s death in this collision, Michael’s mother, Mary Travis, individually, and as administratrix of Michael’s estate, and on behalf of Michael’s wrongful death beneficiaries, filed this wrongful death suit against Illinois Central and certain railroad employees. The plaintiffs asserted that Illinois Central and its locomotive engineer, Arthur Irby, caused the accident. Illinois Central asserted a federal preemption issue, resulting in this state court action being removed to federal court. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi entered summary judgment on all issues in favor of Illinois Central. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which found that the federal courts lacked diversity jurisdiction over this case; therefore, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court judgment and remanded this case with instructions that the case be returned to state court. Upon remand, Illinois Central filed numerous pre-trial motions, including a motion for summary judgment, a motion for change of venue, and a motion to exclude evidence of two prior accidents at Mileston crossing. The court denied Illinois Central’s motion for summary judgment and motion for change of venue but granted Illinois Central’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of these two prior accidents. However, on the day of trial, the court, evidently sua sponte, reconsidered its prior ruling on the motion in limine and granted the motion to the extent that evidence of one of the accidents would be allowed. The trial of this case resulted in a jury verdict as to liability, assigning percentages of fault as follows: Michael Travis – 25%; Illinois Central – 75%; and, Arthur Irby – 0%. The jury also assessed damages in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000,000. The subsequently entered trial court judgment took into account the jury’s assessment of damages and fault by entering judgment against Illinois Central and in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $3,750,000. Illinois Central appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Illinois Central argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to undergird a verdict for the plaintiffs. The southbound train was approaching Mileston crossing from the north side of Michael’s truck. If Michael is looking to his right, he should see, not the tractor, but instead the southbound train traveling fifty-two miles per hour. It also appears to be indisputable that, as the southbound train was approaching Mileston crossing, the train’s horn was blowing. Additionally, there is no dispute about the fact that there were no crossing gates, flashing lights and ringing bells at the Mileston crossing. However, based on conflicting testimony as to the existing vegetation at the Mileston crossing on the date of the accident, and the actions of Michael and the crew members on the train, there exists in the record evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded jurors, in the exercise of impartial judgment, might have reached different conclusions as to the appropriate verdict. Issue 2: Evidence of prior accidents At a pretrial conference, the trial judge granted a motion in limine filed by Illinois Central, to the extent that evidence of two prior accidents at Mileston crossing would not be admissible. However, on the day of trial, the trial judge, evidently sua sponte, reversed herself to the extent that she reconsidered and decided to allow evidence of the 1994 Hawkins accident to be considered by the jury. Prior accident evidence is admissible to show the railroad’s knowledge of a dangerous condition at the crossing, only when the prior-accident evidence involves accidents which are similar. The record in today’s case confirms that the train in the accident was northbound, and not southbound, as was the train in this case. Additionally, the train in the Hawkins accident suddenly appeared from an existing tree line on the east side of the tracks and south of the Mileston crossing. The plaintiffs’ own witness testified that between the time of the 1994 Hawkins accident and the time of Michael’s accident in 1997, trees had been removed from the Mileston crossing area all the way north to the curve, and that there is only vegetation growing up now. Because the Hawkins accident was not substantially similar to this case, the trial judge erred in allowing such evidence, and as such, the evidence resulted in harm and prejudice or adversely affected a substantial right of the defendant. Because the trial court allowed evidence of the Hawkins accident in today’s case, it committed error which is reversible, especially when considering the questionable extent of liability/fault on the part of Illinois Central, as found by the jury, and certain other trial court errors. In discussing the Hawkins accident, a witness testified as to other “accidents” (plural), to which Illinois Central objected, and the trial court sustained the objection, but denied the motion for a mistrial. The plaintiff argues Illinois Central suffered no prejudice as a result of this testimony. However, it was prejudicial especially when this evidence on non-similar accidents is coupled with the testimony of a witness about an area meeting to try to get additional signalization at the Mileston crossing due to the many accidents. Also the court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness, who testified at trial, via deposition, as to his experiences regarding “near-accidents” at the Mileston crossing, since there was no evidence presented to the jury as to possible fault on the part of the witness which placed him in the position of a “near accident.” Issue 3: Admission of evidence It was also highly prejudicial, and reversible error, to allow a witness to testify that other railroad companies had voluntarily placed active warning devices at their grade crossings, and that Illinois Central could have upgraded the Mileston crossing by installing gates and flashing lights if it had only chosen to do so. The effect of this and other similar evidence is that it was drilled into the collective head of the jury that Michael would be alive today if Illinois Central had only installed gates and flashing lights at the Mileston crossing. While it is true that fatalities at railroad grade crossings would become virtually nonexistent if every railroad crossing in the United States had gates, flashing lights and ringing bells, such a requirement would be unquestionably impractical. Issue 4: Jury instructions A jury instruction which used terms and phrases such as “adequate warning devices,” and “that the railroad should have placed more or different warnings than it did,” without any guidance to the jury as to the use of these terms, was impermissibly vague and confusing. Improper evidence had already planted the seed in the jury’s mind that Michael would be alive today if Illinois Central had only spent a little money and placed gates, flashing lights, and ringing bells at the Mileston crossing; and, the giving of this jury instruction only etched in stone that all the jury had to do in order to find for the plaintiffs was to find that Illinois Central failed to erect “adequate warning devices” and that Illinois Central “should have placed more or different warnings than it did.” Issue 5: Punitive damages The plaintiffs cross-appeal the issue of the denial of their request by the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of punitive damages. Based on the disposition of the issues raised by Illinois Central in its direct appeal, it is unnecessary to address the this issue raised via the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
