## Facts

- Thomas Ramsey worked as a locomotive engineer for Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF).
- Ramsey alleged he was injured while working when he slipped on ice on a locomotive walkway.
- After the injury, Ramsey received disability benefits paid through BNSF.
- In a deposition, Ramsey testified that receiving disability benefits did not prevent him from working, that he had been looking for a job, and that he planned to do volunteer work, which he said would not affect his disability benefits.
- At trial, the court admitted evidence of Ramsey’s recent wages from BNSF and evidence of the federal and state income taxes he paid.
- The court excluded evidence of (a) railroad retirement taxes Ramsey paid and (b) Ramsey’s BNSF disability benefits.
- No testimony or statements about Ramsey’s disability benefits or his intent to do volunteer work were presented to the jury.
- Ramsey’s wage-loss computation presented to the jury included railroad retirement taxes as part of the claimed loss.
- BNSF moved for a directed verdict; the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury returned a verdict for Ramsey in the amount of $1.4 million, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- BNSF appealed, challenging submissibility on FELA negligence and challenging damages-related evidentiary and calculation rulings involving disability benefits and railroad retirement taxes.

## Issues

1. Was there sufficient evidence to submit Ramsey’s FELA negligence claim to the jury, including evidence from which a jury could find BNSF had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition and that BNSF’s negligence played a part in causing the injury?
2. Did the trial court err in excluding evidence and related deposition testimony concerning Ramsey’s BNSF disability benefits when offered in connection with Ramsey’s claimed wage loss and ability to work?
3. Did the trial court err in permitting a wage-loss presentation that included railroad retirement taxes while excluding evidence concerning those taxes, thereby affecting the economic-damages submission?

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment as to FELA liability, holding the case was properly submitted and the directed-verdict challenge was correctly denied.
- The court reversed in part on damages-related rulings involving disability-benefit and railroad-retirement-tax evidence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Under FELA, a railroad must use reasonable care to provide employees a reasonably safe place to work; the case may be submitted on proof from which a jury can find the railroad knew or should have known of an unsafe condition.
- FELA causation is satisfied if the railroad’s negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury, making submissibility a low threshold when reasonable inferences support the claim.
- In FELA cases, collateral-source principles generally restrict use of employer-paid benefits to reduce damages, but evidence tied to benefits may be admissible for limited purposes (such as impeachment or disputing claimed inability to work) when the probative value justifies admission and the jury can be properly instructed.
- Economic-loss proof must be presented on a sound legal and evidentiary basis; allowing a damages computation to include payroll-related items while barring the opposing party from presenting related evidence can create an unfairly one-sided presentation and may require reversal of the affected damages component.

## Conclusion

Ramsey’s FELA claim was properly submitted and the liability judgment was affirmed, but the appellate court reversed part of the damages result because the trial court’s rulings on disability-benefit evidence and the treatment of railroad retirement taxes affected the fairness and legal correctness of the economic-damages presentation, requiring remand for corrective proceedings.


Ramsey v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 130 S.W.3d 646 (2004)