## Facts

- A pickup truck occupied by Greg Jewell, his wife Sheila, and their daughter Brittney was struck by a CSX train at a rural Kentucky grade crossing.
- The crossing had only standard crossbuck signs and lacked lights, bells, or gates; the roadway narrowed and inclined up to elevated tracks.
- Greg Jewell died; Sheila and Brittney were injured.
- The plaintiffs alleged CSX negligently operated the train, failed to provide adequate warnings, and had a duty to install additional protective devices because the crossing was “extra-hazardous.”
- Evidence showed no physical obstructions preventing the driver from seeing or hearing an approaching train.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted testimony from six witnesses that Brittney stated after the accident that her parents were arguing and told her to “be quiet” when she warned a train was coming.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law that the crossing was not “extra-hazardous” under Kentucky law, eliminating any duty to provide additional warning devices beyond ordinary signals.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict for CSX on the remaining negligence and causation theories.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting third-party testimony recounting Brittney’s post-accident statements despite challenges to her memory and reliability.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment for CSX.
- The court upheld the directed verdict on the “extra-hazardous crossing” theory because, under Kentucky law, the absence of physical obstructions meant no reasonable jury could find the crossing extra-hazardous.
- The court held the record supported the defense verdict on the remaining negligence issues and declined to reweigh conflicting evidence.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting Brittney’s alleged statements; concerns about brain injury and suggestion bore on weight and credibility rather than admissibility, and Rule 403 did not require exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- Under Kentucky law, a railroad generally has no common-law duty to install gates, lights, or similar devices at a crossing absent a statutory requirement or proof that the crossing is so extra-hazardous that ordinary signals are insufficient.
- A Kentucky “extra-hazardous” crossing requires an actual physical inability to see or hear an approaching train, not merely an unfavorable angle, roadway design, or driver distraction.
- Judgment as a matter of law is proper only when, viewing the evidence favorably to the nonmovant, no reasonable juror could find for that party on a material issue.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion; reliability concerns tied to memory and cognition commonly affect credibility and weight for the jury, and exclusion under Rule 403 requires a finding that unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed a defense judgment in a fatal grade-crossing case, holding that Kentucky law did not permit an “extra-hazardous crossing” submission absent physical obstructions to seeing or hearing the train, that the jury’s defense verdict on negligence and causation was supported by the evidence, and that admitting multiple witnesses’ accounts of the child’s post-accident statements was within the trial court’s evidentiary discretion.


Jewell v. CSX Transp., Inc., 135 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 1998)