(The Associated Press circulated the following story by Bob Anez on February 8.)
HELENA, Mont. — A federal appeals court has overturned a $6.6 million judgment against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway for the death of a Montana man at a rail crossing in 1999.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the judge made serious mistakes in several rulings. It ordered a new trial in the lawsuit filed by Kristi Dorn over the death of her husband, Larry Dorn.
The court said U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull wrongly concluded the dirt road leading to the rail crossing was a public highway and should have allowed testimony from a Highway Patrol officer about how the crash occurred. Also, Cebull should have allowed the railroad to challenge Mrs. Dorn’s effort to put a price on her husband losing his right to enjoy living, the court said.
The judges said a new trial is needed on both the question of responsibility for Dorn’s death and the amount of damages due his widow.
The jury found BNSF negligent in Dorn’s death, which occurred when the grain truck he was driving was struck by a freight train near Hardin in December 1999. The judgment included $5 million in punitive damages.
The railroad’s appeal focused largely on how Dorn approached the rail crossing that day. Although the road was at a 45-degree angle to tracks, BNSF maintained that Dorn swung his truck wide enough on the road to cross the tracks at a 90-degree angle.
The issue was considered critical, because crossing at a perpendicular angle would have given Dorn a better view of the tracks and a better chance of avoiding the oncoming train. Under that scenario, the court pointed out, Dorn would shoulder a greater responsibility for the collision and that could affect the damages ultimately awarded.
The appellate court said Cebull erred by refusing to let an investigating patrol officer testify that tire tracks indicated Dorn’s truck was perpendicular to the tracks. The judge also should have allowed other truck drivers to testify that they routinely were able to “square-up” their vehicles before crossing.
The appellate judges also said BNSF should have been allowed greater leeway to present evidence on damages.