Plaintiff Elmer Kellar sued his employer, Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“UPRR”), under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (“FELA”). He sought damages for injuries he sustained when he drove his car off the road minutes after clocking out on January 17, 2021. Kellar claimed he fell asleep at the wheel.
Kellar argued that UPRR was negligent for failing to maintain a safe workplace. On January 17, 2021, and the days preceding, he had to work beyond the statutory 12-hour limit and/or was deprived of the adequate off-duty hours between on-duty periods. Kellar added that he was covered under the Hours of Service Act (“HSA”), which UPRR allegedly violated through its work schedule requirements on the date of the accident (and on previous occasions).
UPRR moved for summary judgment dismissing Kellar’s claims, arguing that it was not negligent under FELA and that Kellar was not covered by the HSA. Finding that fact issues existed as to whether Kellar was a utility employee covered by the HSA and whether UPRR violated the HSA, the Court denied summary judgment.
UPRR sought to exclude Kellar’s railroad expert witness, Lawrence Mann, under Daubert.
Whether UPRR acted negligently by failing to provide a safe workplace for Kellar and whether it was per se negligent for violating Hours of Service (HSA) provisions constituted the central issues in this case. The key question was whether Mann’s testimony would help the trier of fact address these matters.
Railroad Expert Witness
Lawrence M. Mann is an attorney with over 55 years of experience in railroad safety matters. Since 1996, Mann has been a member of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). Within this committee, he participated in the FRA’s Fatigue Management Working Group, which was established in 2012. This group included officials from Union Pacific and representatives from the Association of American Railroads (AAR).
In addition to his work with the RSAC, Mann served as the principal draftsman of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA). His extensive background in railroad safety has significantly influenced regulations and practices within the industry. Mann’s contributions to safety initiatives have played a vital role in shaping policies that prioritize the well-being of railroad workers and the public. His ongoing involvement in various committees and working groups reflects his commitment to improving safety standards across the railroad sector.
Discussion by the Court
Lawrence Mann’s Report
Mann stated that the opinions and facts presented in his report focused on railroad safety, fatigue management history in the railroad sector, and the specific safety risks associated with fatigue management in this industry. He provided this analysis and assessment to aid the trier-of-fact in understanding the technical application of hours-of-service regulations, which are generally not well-known outside the railroad industry, in relation to Kellar’s case.
Mann concluded his report with the observation that by allowing Kellar to work extended hours, Union Pacific had not implemented sufficient safety measures to address fatigue among employees like Kellar. Based on his expertise in safety and fatigue within the railroad industry, he believed that the company failed to take necessary precautions in this particular instance.
Defendant UPRR’s Argument
In its effort to exclude Mann, UPRR argued that his expert report resembled a legal brief. They claimed it consisted mainly of legal conclusions and the application of law to facts. Additionally, UPRR asserted that Mann lacked the qualifications to testify as an expert on railroad safety since he had never worked for a railroad. Instead, he had served as a plaintiff’s attorney and participated in drafting railroad safety regulations and legislation.
UPRR contended that Mann’s opinion on fatigue management regulations and their history were irrelevant. They noted that binding fatigue management regulations were not enacted until 2022, more than a year after the plaintiff’s accident. Furthermore, UPRR argued that Mann had not employed any recognized methodology and merely expressed his own opinions regarding the case’s facts. They particularly objected to his medical opinion, which stated that Kellar suffered from a disrupted circadian rhythm due to UPRR’s actions.
Plaintiff Kellar’s Counter-Argument
Kellar opposed the motion, arguing that he primarily presented Mann as an expert on railroad safety. He emphasized that Mann’s expertise was particularly relevant to understanding Union Pacific’s knowledge and foreseeability. These factors were crucial to assessing Union Pacific’s negligence in the case.
Analysis
For the negligence claim, the Plaintiff asserted that Mann’s report showed that Union Pacific recognized the risks of fatigue, making Kellar’s injury foreseeable.
UPRR’s corporate designee testified repeatedly to the railroad’s awareness of the risk presented by fatigue. Thus, there is simply no contested fact in issue that this portion of Mann’s testimony tends to prove, and Mann’s testimony on this point would not assist the jury in determining an issue for trial.
Furthermore, Mann lacked the qualifications to provide opinions on medical causation—specifically, that Kellar suffered from disrupted circadian rhythm caused by UPRR. Mann’s report did not reference any sleep study, nor did he possess a medical degree. Moreover, he had never worked as a sleep specialist. As a result, the Court excluded this testimony as well.
Mann’s testimony also stated that sleep deprivation increases the risk of falling asleep while driving. However, the Court held that the testimony was unnecessary because understanding fatigue’s onset and effects falls within the realm of the jury’s common experience.
For the negligence per se claim, much of Mann’s historical analysis of fatigue management lacked relevance. The Plaintiff needed to prove he was covered under the HSA and that UPRR violated HSA’s terms for this claim to hold water.
Mann’s appreciation of the legislative history of fatigue management regulations in the railroad industry, which incorporated many citations to statutes, the Federal Register, and House and Senate reports, would not help the trier of fact in making the required determination.
Mann could testify about the technical application of hours-of-service regulations, as UPRR did not contest his qualifications. Therefore, this testimony could provide useful expertise, provided it did not usurps the Court’s role.
Held
The Court granted in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s railroad expert witness Lawrence Mann’s testimony.
Key Takeaway:
To begin with, much of Mann’s testimony was excluded because he lacked a medical degree which was need to opine on causation in this case and his opinion on sleep deprivation fell within the jury’s ‘common experience and knowledge.’ Moreover, his appreciation of the legislative history of fatigue management regulations in the railroad industry will simply not assist the trier of fact in making the necessary determination.
Case Details:
| Case caption: | Kellar v. Union Pac. Railroad Company |
| Docket Number: | 2:21cv2045 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Dated: | October 31, 2024 |
Leave a Reply