Frank v. Union Pacific Railroad Corporation

129 P.3d 999 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D assigned P to conduct a train. P tripped and fell while descending the interior stairs on the locomotive. After examining the stairwell, P discovered a loose rubber mat, which covered a vertical riser on a step. P reported the incident. Within a couple hours, the yard manager and a safety manager inspected the locomotive and took photographs. The locomotive engineer completed an engineer's inspection form on which she documented the loose mat as a 'tripping hazard.' P filed a personal injury report stating that he had tripped on a loose rubber riser and had sustained injuries. Within a week P's attorneys notified D that a personal injury claim would be filed. During discovery, D was unable to produce several documents that pertained to inspections and maintenance performed on the locomotive prior to and after the fall. Federal railroad and locomotive safety standards require carriers to make inspection reports and maintain the records for 92 days. D has a 92-day document retention policy. When someone reports an accident the documents are retained. D attributed to a change in personnel for the disappearance or destruction of P’s documents. Before trial, D filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence or arguments regarding the missing documents. P requested an adverse inference instruction regarding the spoliation of evidence both at the close of the case-in-chief and at the close of all evidence with the other jury instructions. The trial court granted P’s motion to give an adverse inference instruction that the evidence contained in the missing documents was unfavorable to D. D amended its answer and admitted negligence in failing to properly inspect and maintain the stairwell. The trial was limited to determining causation and damages. D claimed that because it conceded negligence, the missing documents were not relevant to any issue at trial, and evidence regarding the missing documents would only serve to prejudice D. The trial court denied this motion. Three times throughout the course of the trial, the court instructed the jury that it could draw an adverse inference. The jury returned a verdict in favor of P and awarded six million dollars. D appealed. The court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving an adverse inference instruction but committed reversible error by repeating the instruction. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. P appealed.