Jewell v. Csx Transportation, Inc.,

135 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 1998)

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

Jewell (P) was driving his pickup truck with his wife and six-year-old daughter. As the truck crossed railroad tracks, it was struck from a train which approached from the right. P was killed, and his wife and daughter were injured. Sheila, his wife, sued on behalf of P's estate, on her own behalf, and Stacy Lemon, as guardian of the daughter sued on the child's behalf. They all alleged that CSX (D) was negligent in failing to sound a warning as the train approached the crossing and that the train crew failed to exercise ordinary care in the operation of the train and that the crossing wherein the accident took place was extra-hazardous. The crossing had no lights, bells, or mechanical gates or other warning devices. The case went to trial and the court issued a directed verdict on the issue of the crossing being extra hazardous for D and the jury also returned the verdict for D. Experts did testify for P at trial that the crossing was extra hazardous because it made the drive look more than 90 degrees to see if a train was coming along with the glare from a setting sun, the blind spot in a vehicle and the inability to see oncoming vehicle traffic due to the elevated roadbed and ruts in the road distracted drivers from paying attention to approaching train traffic. P appealed

P contends in part that the court committed error by admitting the statements made by Brittney Jewell immediately before the collision about an alleged argument between Greg and Shelia Jewell. P had filed a motion to exclude that testimony. It was admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(A). D introduced evidence that at-trial from six witnesses that Brittney had told them about the argument. P offered evidence that Brittney had suffered permanent brain damage from the accident.