Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska ruled on Union Pacific Railroad Company’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert Alan Pagels and limit the testimony of expert Charles Culver in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act action arising from a train derailment. The court held that Pagels could testify regarding the three negligence theories pleaded in the operative complaint, but excluded testimony concerning unpleaded theories, including regulatory violations and inadequate track drainage. The court allowed Culver’s testimony because it was relevant to Union Pacific’s comparative-negligence defense.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Alan Pagels's expert testimony concerning theories of negligence not pleaded in the operative complaint was relevant and admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
- Whether Pagels could testify about federal track-safety regulations, track drainage, engineering standards, and special inspections when those matters supported negligence theories omitted from the operative complaint.
- Whether Charles Culver's testimony concerning plaintiffs' compliance with railroad rules, warnings, and their ability to anticipate track conditions was relevant to Union Pacific's comparative-negligence defense.
Holdings
- Expert testimony is relevant only to the extent that it relates to a claim pleaded in the operative complaint or to an affirmative defense. Because plaintiffs' operative complaint specified three negligence theories without preserving additional theories, Pagels could not testify about negligence theories that plaintiffs had attempted, unsuccessfully, to add by amendment.
- Pagels may testify about the three negligence theories pleaded in the operative complaint: failure to warn of imminent flooding, negligent track placement, and failure to warn about the risk of flooding and derailment at the derailment location. His testimony about federal waterflow requirements, the geographic risk of flooding, severe-weather standards, and Union Pacific's responsibility for crew safety is admissible only insofar as it relates to those pleaded theories.
- Pagels may not testify about the specific requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 213.1 et seq. or Union Pacific's alleged failure to comply with those requirements, Union Pacific's failure to maintain adequate track drainage, or Union Pacific's ability to design, construct, and maintain track in compliance with internal engineering standards, because those opinions concern negligence theories not pleaded in the operative complaint.
- Culver's testimony was not excluded because it related to plaintiffs' compliance with railroad rules, whether they were warned about conditions ahead, and whether they had reason to anticipate track difficulties, all of which were relevant to Union Pacific's comparative-negligence defense.
Key quotations
“The operative complaint failed to put Defendant on notice to defend itself against additional theories of negligence not enumerated in the complaint, and allowing additional theories of negligence would impose an undue burden on Defendant by expanding the theories of negligence.”
“Therefore, Plaintiffs’ proffered expert testimony is only relevant to the extent it relates to the three theories of negligence set forth in the operative complaint or any affirmative defenses raised by Defendant, including comparative negligence.”
Factual background
On July 15, 2021, plaintiffs, employees of Union Pacific, were operating a train that derailed during flooding in Lund, Utah. Plaintiffs alleged that Union Pacific negligently placed the track in a flood-prone location and failed to warn them about imminent flooding and the risk of flooding and derailment. Plaintiffs' experts offered opinions concerning track drainage, federal and internal railroad standards, severe-weather inspections, warnings, train operation, and comparative negligence.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs brought a Federal Employers' Liability Act claim arising from a train derailment and alleged that Union Pacific negligently placed the track and failed to warn them about flooding and derailment risks. AccuWeather was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' motion to revise that dismissal and for leave to file a second amended complaint adding further negligence theories was denied because it was untimely and lacked good cause. Defendant then moved to exclude expert testimony concerning the additional theories that plaintiffs had attempted to add.