Lupia v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.

Background

Scott Lupia asserted claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act based on injuries he allegedly suffered while working as a locomotive engineer for New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. On July 21, 2021, he collapsed from heat exhaustion and injured his head and neck after operating a train whose cab air-conditioning unit was not working and whose temperature rose above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The case was scheduled for a jury trial.

The parties filed several motions in limine. These are pretrial requests asking the court to decide whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury. This opinion addressed all of the identified motions except the motion concerning the Rail Asset Management Systems Incident Inquiry Report.

Medical treatment and later injuries

New Jersey Transit argued that surgery and other medical treatment after Lupia’s initial injury caused new and permanent injuries. Lupia asked the court to exclude evidence or argument that medical providers caused additional injuries and to prevent any apportionment of damages between New Jersey Transit and medical providers.

The court denied this motion. It explained that, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, a railroad may be liable for additional injury caused by malpractice during treatment made necessary by the railroad’s negligence. The court also stated that the statute does not allow damages to be divided between the railroad and nonrailroad causes. Even so, the evidence about the October 12, 2021 surgery and alleged malpractice was relevant to the amount of damages because it could help the jury determine when particular injuries occurred and compare Lupia’s condition before and after the surgery. The court said jury instructions would explain that New Jersey Transit could remain responsible for injuries resulting from necessary medical treatment, and it could consider a limiting instruction or objections to particular evidence at trial.

Railroad Retirement Act benefits

Lupia had applied for disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act but was not yet receiving them. Because such benefits would come from an independent source, the court granted Lupia’s motion to exclude evidence or argument about his receipt of sickness or disability benefits. The court concluded that this evidence was generally irrelevant to damages and posed a substantial risk of unfair prejudice under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.

The court treated the issue of retirement eligibility differently. Lupia’s economic expert assumed that, absent his injury, Lupia would have worked until age 67. New Jersey Transit sought to present evidence that Lupia would have been eligible for maximum retirement benefits at age 60, not age 67, to challenge that assumption.

The court allowed New Jersey Transit to offer evidence that Lupia was eligible to retire at age 60 with maximum retirement benefits, but only for the limited purpose of responding to the expert’s work-life assumption. It barred evidence about the availability or amount of the retirement benefits and said the evidence could not be used to offset damages or show malingering. The court also offered to give a limiting instruction. It rejected Lupia’s argument that the retirement-eligibility evidence was impermissibly speculative.

Testimony of John Alsdorf

New Jersey Transit asked the court to exclude testimony from John Alsdorf, Lupia’s coworker and friend. Alsdorf was expected to testify about conditions and window operation in New Jersey Transit locomotive cabs, his observations of Lupia’s impairment, and the effect of Lupia’s injuries on his life.

The court denied this motion. It found the testimony relevant because New Jersey Transit expected to argue that Lupia was contributorily negligent for failing to open the cab window. Alsdorf could testify about the operation of the same type of window, and any differences between locomotives or limits on his personal knowledge could be addressed through cross-examination. The court also found his testimony about the impact of the accident was not improperly cumulative.

Rail Asset Management Systems report

The court reserved ruling on New Jersey Transit’s motion to exclude the Rail Asset Management Systems Incident Inquiry Report covering January 1 through December 31, 2020. The report concerned other reported incidents involving Engine 4627, the locomotive cab Lupia operated on the date of the accident. New Jersey Transit argued that the report was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; Lupia argued that it was an admission relevant to negligence. The court deferred the decision until it could review the exhibit and hear argument at the final pretrial conference.

Disposition

The court granted Lupia’s motion to exclude evidence of sickness and disability benefits from independent sources. It otherwise denied the motions in limine addressed in the opinion, including the motion concerning medical-treatment evidence, the motion concerning retirement eligibility, and the motion to exclude Alsdorf’s testimony. It reserved ruling on the motion concerning the Rail Asset Management Systems report.