Background
On September 16, 2016, Theopholia Thomas was driving a garbage truck on a collection route in Baldwin, Louisiana, when he turned onto Lockley Street to cross a railroad grade crossing maintained by BNSF Railway Company. The wooden plank crossing was narrower than the adjacent roadway — in violation of both BNSF’s internal standards and industry standards, which required the crossing edge to extend at least one foot beyond the traveled roadway on each side. As Thomas made the turn, his wide approach caused the truck’s left front tire to drop off the planks and into the gap between the crossing and the rail. After maneuvering the truck back out of the hole, Thomas re-entered the crossing but stopped again on the tracks. A BNSF train traveling approximately 36 miles per hour struck the rear of the truck, injuring Thomas. Thomas filed suit alleging that BNSF’s failure to maintain the crossing to proper width was the cause of the accident.
Following a six-day jury trial in May 2022, the jury found both BNSF and Thomas negligent, but answered inconsistently: it found Thomas’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, yet still allocated 15% of the fault to him and 85% to BNSF. The trial court entered judgment for Thomas in the amount of $8,307,050.00 without resolving the inconsistency. The First Circuit Court of Appeal vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial on the ground that the trial court failed to comply with Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1813(E), which requires the court to send the jury back for further deliberation or order a new trial when interrogatory answers are internally inconsistent. On a first supervisory writ, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the court of appeal’s judgment, holding that Thomas’s consent to the 15% allocation effectively resolved the inconsistency and that no new trial was required. The case was remanded to the First Circuit to address BNSF’s remaining assignments of error regarding liability, causation, and quantum. On remand, the First Circuit upheld the jury’s 85%/15% fault allocation and found no abuse of discretion in the general damage award. BNSF sought certiorari a second time, and the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review solely on the issue of the fault percentages.
The total damages awarded by the jury — before reduction for comparative fault — included $330,000 in past lost wages, $491,000 in future lost wages, $112,000 in past medical expenses, $840,000 in future medical expenses, $5,000,000 in past and future pain and suffering, and $3,000,000 in loss of enjoyment of life.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Supreme Court found manifest error in the jury’s allocation of 85% fault to BNSF and 15% to Thomas, concluding that the record compelled a finding that Thomas bore the greater share of fault. The Court acknowledged that BNSF had a statutory duty under Louisiana Revised Statute 45:323 to maintain the crossing in a condition suitable for vehicular traffic and that the unduly narrow crossing created the hole that initially trapped the truck’s tire. However, the Court emphasized that Thomas violated multiple traffic laws before and during the crossing, including the duty under La. R.S. 32:175 to slow or stop, look and listen in both directions, and yield the right-of-way to any approaching train. Critically, video evidence from the train showed that Thomas had successfully freed the truck from the hole and backed fully off the tracks before the collision, yet inexplicably drove forward again onto the crossing and stopped — failing to yield for the oncoming train a second time.
Applying the manifest error standard and the “highest or lowest point reasonably within discretion” rule from Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., the Court modified the fault allocation. It raised Thomas’s share to 75% — the lowest percentage it deemed reasonably supportable — and reduced BNSF’s share to 25%, pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code article 2323(A). Because Thomas’s fault remains below the 51% threshold that bars recovery under Louisiana’s comparative fault scheme, he retains the right to recover, but his damages are reduced proportionally.
The Court did not disturb any other aspect of the judgment. The quantum of damages and the underlying findings of negligence and causation were left intact; only the percentages of fault were amended. The judgment was affirmed as amended. Chief Justice Weimer concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing that the 85% allocation was manifestly erroneous but arguing the record supported reducing BNSF’s fault to no more than 15%. Justice McCallum dissented entirely, concluding that BNSF’s conduct was not a cause in fact of Thomas’s injuries given that Thomas had freed the truck and backed off the tracks before choosing to drive forward again.
Key Takeaways
- A railroad’s statutory duty under La. R.S. 45:323 to maintain a crossing in condition suitable for vehicular traffic does not insulate an injured motorist from bearing the majority of fault where the motorist violated multiple traffic laws and had an opportunity to avoid the collision after the initial hazard was resolved.
- Video evidence capturing the sequence of a crossing accident can constitute objective evidence sufficient to support — or compel — a finding of manifest error in a jury’s credibility-based fault allocation.
- Under Louisiana’s comparative fault framework, once an appellate court finds the trier of fact’s percentage allocation manifestly erroneous, it may only adjust the percentages to the highest or lowest point reasonably within the trial court’s discretion — it cannot substitute its own preferred allocation.
- A commercial driver’s license holder is held to a higher standard of care at railroad crossings than the general motoring public, a factor properly weighed in the Watson fault-allocation analysis.
- A plaintiff’s consent to a jury verdict allocating a percentage of fault to him, despite an inconsistent jury finding that his negligence was not a proximate cause, effectively concedes causation and precludes either de novo review or a new trial on that issue.
Why It Matters
This decision is a significant recalibration of how Louisiana courts allocate fault at railroad grade crossings where both the railroad’s maintenance failures and a motorist’s traffic violations contribute to a collision. By shifting the dominant share of fault to the driver — even though the railroad’s substandard crossing width created the initial hazard — the Court signals that an intervening voluntary decision by a motorist to re-enter a dangerous crossing can dramatically reduce the railroad’s comparative fault exposure. Railroads facing similar maintenance-deficiency claims will cite this opinion for the proposition that a driver who frees himself from a hazard and then re-creates the danger through independent negligence bears primary responsibility for the outcome.
The fractured court — a majority opinion, a partial concurrence/partial dissent from the Chief Justice urging an even lower railroad fault figure, and a full dissent arguing zero railroad causation — also highlights the substantial room for disagreement when appellate courts apply manifest error review to objective video evidence. Practitioners litigating railroad crossing cases in Louisiana should expect continued debate over the proper application of the Watson factors in cases where surveillance or dashcam footage, rather than witness credibility, drives the fault analysis.