Lacy v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
520 S.E.2d 418 (1999)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a civil trial, it is generally an abuse of discretion for a trial court to instruct the jury or permit argument by counsel regarding the operation of the doctrine of joint and several liability, as such arguments are founded on speculation about post-judgment outcomes and risk misleading the jury.

Facts:

Tanya Lacy and Richard Brooks were passengers in a car driven by Cacoe Sullivan on the night of January 11, 1995.
As Sullivan's car approached the Fifth Street railroad crossing in St. Albans, the crossing's flashing lights and gates were activated.
A slow-moving CSX 'shifter' locomotive was approaching the crossing from the west, while a second, fast-moving CSX train was also approaching from the east.
Sullivan drove her car around one of the lowered gate arms and onto the tracks.
The car was struck broadside by the westbound CSX train, which was traveling at 50 miles per hour, causing severe injuries to Lacy and Brooks.
CSX's warning system at the crossing used fixed-distance circuitry, which frequently resulted in extended activation times for slow-moving trains.
Multiple witnesses, including the former mayor of St. Albans, testified that this practice led local drivers to frequently ignore the warning signals and gates.

Procedural Posture:

Tanya Lacy and Richard Brooks sued CSX Transportation, Inc. and Cacoe Sullivan in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (trial court) for negligence.
The trial was bifurcated on the issues of liability and damages.
At the conclusion of the liability phase, the jury returned a special verdict finding both CSX and Sullivan negligent.
The jury found that CSX's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, but Sullivan's negligence was.
The jury apportioned fault as 1% to CSX, 97% to Sullivan, 1% to Lacy, and 1% to Brooks.
Based on the jury's finding of no proximate cause attributable to CSX, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of CSX.
Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict was denied by the trial court.
Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, with CSX as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court abuse its discretion by permitting a defendant's counsel to argue to the jury the potential post-judgment effects of the doctrine of joint and several liability, where such argument is speculative and invites the jury to nullify the law?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice McGraw

Yes. It is generally an abuse of discretion for a trial court to permit counsel to argue the potential post-judgment effects of joint and several liability. Such arguments are founded on speculation about matters not in evidence, such as whether a particular defendant will ultimately pay a judgment, and invite the jury to nullify established law rather than perform its fact-finding duty. Unlike instructions on comparative negligence, which aid the jury in understanding the mechanics of fault apportionment, arguments about joint and several liability are misleading and would require delving into complex, collateral issues like insurance, contribution rights, and defendants' financial resources. In this case, counsel's argument was especially misleading because it ignored CSX's right of contribution against its co-defendant and improperly framed the jury's choice as finding CSX either 0% or 100% responsible, which is a misstatement of the law. This error was not harmless as it created grave doubt about its effect on the jury’s ultimate finding that CSX was not a proximate cause of the accident.

Dissenting - Justice Workman

No. The trial court's rulings did not constitute reversible error. Any error related to the closing argument on joint and several liability was harmless because the jury rejected counsel's plea and did, in fact, assign one percent negligence to CSX, demonstrating it was not improperly influenced. The majority's assumption that this argument tainted the separate jury finding on proximate cause is illogical and disregards the jury's ability to follow instructions. Furthermore, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding the handwritten notation on the accident diagram as untrustworthy, 'third-hand hearsay,' since the source of the information was unknown and there was no proof that the declarant was acting under a business duty to report accurately.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a significant prohibitory rule in West Virginia, preventing defense counsel from using the 'deep pockets' implication of joint and several liability to prejudice a jury against finding even minimal fault. The court distinguishes this from permissible instructions on comparative negligence, drawing a clear line between informing the jury on the mechanics of fault apportionment (permissible) and encouraging speculation on post-judgment collection (impermissible). This precedent reinforces that a jury's role is to determine fault and causation based on evidence, not to be influenced by speculative arguments about the ultimate financial consequences of its verdict, thereby protecting the integrity of the doctrine of joint and several liability from jury nullification.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lacy v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature