## Facts

- Milton Thornton, Sr. worked as a carman for National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) at Amtrak’s New Orleans facility.
- On May 21, 1997, Thornton was assigned to replace bolster springs on an Amtrak Superliner coach.
- At the New Orleans facility, the common practice for bolster-spring changes was to support the railcar with wood blocking so the springs could be compressed and the swing hanger nuts and bolts could be removed by hand.
- Evidence at trial showed that a Chicago Amtrak facility used metal blocking for the same work.
- While Thornton was loosening the nuts and bolts, the wood blocking supporting the car gave way and Thornton’s hands were pinned in pinch points for about five minutes.
- Thornton suffered lacerations and multiple fractures in both hands; he lost one finger and underwent procedures including pin fixation.
- A treating hand specialist assigned permanent impairment ratings (9% to the right hand and 11% to the left hand), translating to a 16% whole-body impairment.
- Thornton sued Amtrak under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging Amtrak failed to provide reasonably safe equipment and methods for the task.
- Over Amtrak’s objection, the trial court admitted (1) an Amtrak Investigation Committee Report dated May 21, 1997 that included recommendations such as constructing equipment to replace blocking and obtaining a socket to remove swing hanger nuts, and (2) an Accident Prevention Safety Alert also dated May 21, 1997 recommending equipment other than wood blocking.
- Amtrak presented testimony that wood blocking was adequate if used correctly and argued the accident occurred because Thornton used the equipment improperly.
- The jury found Amtrak primarily at fault (90%), assigned minimal fault to Thornton (1%), assigned remaining fault to another person (9%), and awarded substantial damages, including $731,429 for loss of earning capacity/benefits and $1.5 million in general damages.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict and denied Amtrak’s post-trial motions (including JNOV and, alternatively, new trial or remittitur).

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err under Louisiana Code of Evidence article 407 by admitting the Investigation Committee Report and Safety Alert as impermissible evidence of subsequent remedial measures offered to prove Amtrak’s negligence?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s award for lost wages and loss of future earning capacity (including a finding consistent with total and permanent work disability)?
3. Was the $1.5 million general-damages award so excessive that it constituted an abuse of the jury’s discretion requiring reduction?

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court held the trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting the Investigation Committee Report and Accident Prevention Safety Alert.
- The court upheld the award for loss of earning capacity and benefits, finding the record supported the jury’s assessment of Thornton’s lasting functional limitations and resulting economic loss.
- The court held the $1.5 million general-damages award was not an abuse of discretion given the nature, severity, and permanence of the hand injuries, including amputation, pain, and lasting impairment.
- The court affirmed the denial of Amtrak’s post-trial motions seeking JNOV, new trial, or remittitur.

## Legal Principles

- Under FELA, a railroad has a duty to use reasonable care to provide employees a reasonably safe workplace, tools, and methods; employee negligence reduces damages rather than barring recovery.
- Louisiana Code of Evidence article 407 generally bars evidence of measures taken after an injury when offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct, but it permits such evidence when offered for other purposes (such as feasibility, control, or impeachment) and does not automatically exclude investigative materials closely connected in time to the accident.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is deferential; reversal is warranted only for an abuse of discretion that results in substantial prejudice.
- Loss of earning capacity is a fact-intensive damages item; a jury may award substantial future wage loss when medical and vocational evidence shows permanent restrictions that materially limit the plaintiff’s ability to perform prior work and comparable employment.
- General damages are reviewed under Louisiana’s “much discretion” standard; an appellate court does not substitute its own award unless the amount is beyond what a reasonable factfinder could assess for the injuries proved.

## Conclusion

Thornton v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. affirmed a FELA jury verdict for an Amtrak carman whose hands were crushed when wood blocking failed during a bolster-spring replacement. The Fourth Circuit held the trial court properly admitted same-day Amtrak investigation and safety materials over an article 407 objection and found the evidence supported both the substantial loss-of-earning-capacity award and the $1.5 million general-damages award.


Thornton v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 802 So. 2d 816 (2001)