Douglas Overfield v. BNSF Railway Company

St. Louis, Missouri employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a FELA claim.

Overfield worked as a locomotive engineer for BNSF. On February 18, 2018, as Overfield was exiting a locomotive, his company-issued reflective vest caught on the rear door handle mechanism, causing him to fall and sustain severe spinal injuries. He is no longer able to work as an engineer with the work restrictions given by his orthopedic surgeon. Overfield filed against BNSF claims of negligence under FELA, and of negligence per se under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), but only the FELA claim was submitted to the jury.



Overfield presented evidence that he exited two locomotives that day. The first was equipped with a short walkway or platform outside the door that led to two steps descending to ground level. The second locomotive, on which Overfield was injured, had steps immediately outside the door. Both had a narrow doorway that Overfield had to turn sideways to pass through. The second locomotive also had a protruding door handle and bolt-locking mechanism that extended from the door, unlike other locomotives in BNSF's fleet that have a recessed lock or small knob. The only handrail outside the door of the second locomotive required an employee to reach past the door handle of the open door.



BNSF safety policy required employees to maintain "three-point contact" when exiting a locomotive, which is contact with the locomotive using either two hands and one foot, or two feet and one hand. Overfield testified that some locomotives had "grab irons" by the door frame, but the second locomotive, on which he was injured, did not. There was also evidence that some locomotives had two handrails available as employees exit the

cab. Overfield testified he did not receive training regarding exiting a locomotive like the second locomotive; specifically, how to use a handrail that was partially blocked by the door of the locomotive.



BNSF policy also required its employees to wear reflective clothing anytime they were outside the cab of a locomotive, which included while they exit the locomotive. Many types of reflective clothing were permitted under this policy, but at the time of Overfield's injury, BNSF issued only reflective vests to its employees free of charge. Overfield presented evidence that the zippered vests like the one he was wearing when he was injured, had large arm holes that were prone to snag, and that prior to his injury BNSF had received numerous reports of employee injuries or near-injuries resulting from vests snagging on various locomotive components, including door handles. BNSF had therefore made available tear-away vests, designed to tear apart if snagged, in order to address the issues with the zippered vests. However, BNSF received complaints about the tear-away vests not working properly. At the time of Overfield's injury, BNSF policy allowed employees to choose to wear either zippered or tear-away vests.



Overfield submitted only his FELA claim to the jury. He argued that the reflective vest with a known snag risk was unsafe in the conditions of exiting through the narrow doorway with a protruding handle and steps immediately outside the door, with the only handrail being partially blocked by the open door. The trial court gave the following verdict director to the jury:



Instruction 7



In your verdict, you must assess a percentage of fault against BNSF Railway Company whether or not plaintiff was partly at fault if you believe:



First, conditions for work were not reasonably safe and defendant knew or by using ordinary care could have known of such conditions and that they were not reasonably safe, and



Second, with respect to such conditions for work, defendant either failed to provide:



reasonably safe conditions for work, or reasonably safe reflective clothing, and



Third, defendant, in any one or more of the respects submitted in Paragraph Second, was negligent, and



Fourth, such negligence resulted, in whole or in part, in injury to Plaintiff Douglas Overfield.



(emphasis added). BNSF objected to the italicized language above offered in the disjunctive, noting that Overfield's claim centered on the vest, and Overfield had abandoned his claim that the design of the second locomotive was inherently unsafe.



BNSF further requested a withdrawal instruction to direct the jury that they "may not consider the design of the locomotive or any of its parts or appurtenances as evidence of negligence in this case." Overfield argued this withdrawal instruction was too broad because the conditions of the locomotive, while not inherently unsafe, contributed to the unsafe conditions given the fact that Overfield was required to wear the vest with large arm holes as he exited the locomotive. The trial court denied the withdrawal instruction.



The jury returned a verdict assessing one hundred percent fault against BNSF for Overfield's injuries and awarding damages in the amount of $2.75 million.



* * *



EMPLOYMENT LAW. FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (FELA). The case addresses an appeal against a judgment favoring an employee under FELA, focusing on whether the jury instruction provided disjunctive bases for finding the employer negligent due to unsafe work conditions or unsafe protective clothing, and whether these bases were supported by substantial evidence.



EMPLOYMENT LAW. JURY INSTRUCTION. The case evaluates whether the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction that potentially constituted a roving commission due to its generality, specifically concerning the failure to provide reasonably safe working conditions and apparel.



EMPLOYMENT LAW. WITHDRAWAL INSTRUCTION. The court examines the trial court's discretion in refusing a proposed withdrawal instruction that sought to exclude consideration of locomotive design from negligence evidence, discussing whether the denial was an abuse of discretion given the intertwining of safety conditions and clothing.

Key Phrases Negligence under FELA. Instructional error. Reflective clothing risk. Disjunctive verdict director. Unsafe working conditions.

Affirmed