Torres v. Metro-North Railroad Company

Background

Miguel Torres asserted claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, a federal law governing certain railroad-employee injury claims, based on injuries he suffered on or about March 24, 2018, while working as a structural welder/ironworker on Metro-North Railroad Company’s premises. The trial was limited to damages. Torres filed two pretrial motions: one seeking to exclude evidence of sickness and disability benefits, and another seeking permission to introduce statements by Metro-North employees and to use leading questions with certain witnesses. Metro-North did not file opposition papers.

Benefits Evidence

The court held that benefits Torres received from the Railroad Retirement Board, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and MetLife were collateral-source benefits. Under the collateral-source rule, compensation from an independent source generally does not reduce the damages a plaintiff may recover. The court therefore found that evidence of those benefits was irrelevant to damages and precluded Metro-North from introducing it under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.

The court separately analyzed Metro-North sick-leave pay under 45 U.S.C. § 55, which allows a railroad employer in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act case to offset certain payments it made toward insurance, relief, or indemnity benefits. Relying on the governing collective bargaining agreement and the absence of any provision tying the sick-leave benefit to Federal Employers’ Liability Act liability, the court concluded that the sick-leave benefits functioned as income earned through employment rather than as an arrangement protecting Metro-North from liability. Metro-North therefore could not set off those payments against any liability to Torres, and the court also precluded Metro-North from offering that evidence under Rules 401 and 403.

Employee Statements and Witnesses

The court addressed statements by Metro-North co-employees, supervisors, and managers under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). That rule treats a statement as not hearsay when it is offered against an opposing party and was made by the party’s employee or agent, during the employment relationship, about a matter within the scope of that relationship. Torres must first establish the agency relationship, show that the statement was made while the relationship existed, and show that the statement concerned a matter within its scope. If he establishes that foundation, he may offer the statements as statements made on Metro-North’s behalf.

The court also permitted Torres to treat current Metro-North supervisors and managers as hostile witnesses under Rule 611(c). It reserved for the pretrial conference or trial the question whether former supervisors and managers, and Metro-North co-employees, qualified as hostile witnesses.

Disposition

The court precluded Metro-North from introducing the specified benefit evidence. It stated that Torres could offer qualifying employee statements if he established the required foundation, permitted current supervisors and managers to be treated as hostile witnesses, and deferred the remaining hostile-witness determinations to the pretrial conference or trial. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order on February 16, 2023.