Supreme Court of Virginia Addresses Admissibility of Evidence of Non-Virginia Statutes

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Virginia addressed the admissibility of evidence of other states’ statutes in Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Co. v. Wilson. In Wilson, the plaintiff was a conductor for a railroad. While riding along the side of a boxcar, he was struck by an inward-leaning fence post located along the track, injuring his arm. The plaintiff brought a claim against the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 U.S.C. §§ 51–60), alleging that it breached its duty to inspect and maintain the track and to eliminate dangerous “close clearances.”

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert testified that, although Virginia did not have a statute on the issue, thirty-eight other states adopted “close clearance” laws that would have been violated in this case. In the end, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $330,000.

The court found that the trial court erred in admitting portions of the plaintiff's expert's testimony. According to the court, “[i]napplicable statutes are, in most circumstances, irrelevant to the proof of the standard of care in a negligence case.” Thus, “[a] statute inapplicable to the case . . . is inadmissible. Any relevance it might have would be substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect of admitting it.” The court concluded as follows:

Statutory law, as the considered judgment of the elected representatives of the people, properly commands the respect of jurors. Evidence of statutory law that does not apply to the case on trial, but seems to support the position of one party, is likely to be both misleading to the jury and prejudicial to the opposing party. We agree with the courts that have considered the question and hold that inapplicable statutes are inadmissible as proof of the standard of reasonable conduct in a negligence case. For that reason, we will reverse the judgment and remand the case to the circuit court.

The court also rejected the defendant’s assignments of error involving the adequacy of expert disclosures, the foundation for the expert’s opinion, and the admission of evidence that the fence at other points along the tracks was also a “close clearance.”