Payne v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Supreme Court of Tennessee · 2015 · Evidence

467 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2015)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFELAexpert testimonycausationRule 702Rule 703differential diagnosisqualitative exposure evidence

Facts

Winston Carrol Payne worked for CSX for forty-one years and later developed lung cancer. He sued under FELA, alleging CSX negligently exposed him to asbestos, diesel exhaust fumes, and radioactive materials and also violated safety statutes and regulations. At trial, the plaintiff presented expert testimony that these workplace exposures contributed to Payne's lung cancer even though precise dose measurements were unavailable because CSX had not monitored exposure levels. The jury found CSX negligent and negligent per se, found Payne 62% at fault due to smoking, and initially awarded $8.6 million before the trial judge gave supplemental instructions that led to an amended $3.2 million verdict.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's expert proof on causation was admissible despite the lack of precise dose evidence, and whether the trial court properly granted a new trial or altered the jury's damages determination after the original verdict. Also, what remedy was proper after the trial court's post-verdict errors in a FELA case involving negligence per se.

Rule

Under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, qualified expert testimony is admissible if it is based on reliable data and methodology and will substantially assist the trier of fact; precise quantitative dose evidence is not required to support expert causation testimony where the experts use reliable qualitative or differential-diagnosis methods. In a FELA case, contributory negligence does not reduce damages when the railroad's statutory or regulatory violation contributed in any part to the injury. When liability has been separately and validly determined by special verdict but prejudicial error affects only damages, the proper remedy is a new trial limited to damages.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elias Turner, a railroad mechanic in Chattanooga, Tennessee, sues his employer under FELA after developing pulmonary cancer. The railroad never monitored airborne contaminants in its shops, and Turner’s oncologist and industrial hygienist rely on his work history, medical records, published literature, and differential diagnosis to conclude that years of diesel exhaust and asbestos exposure contributed to his disease, though neither can state a precise numerical dose.

The railroad moves to exclude both experts solely because they cannot identify Turner’s exact dose or prove exposure above a quantified threshold. How should the court rule?

Explanation. Under Rules 702 and 703, the key questions are reliability, trustworthiness, and whether the testimony will substantially assist the trier of fact. The majority rejected a bright-line rule requiring precise dose evidence and approved qualitative analysis and differential diagnosis where exact monitoring data was unavailable. The lack of exact dose generally goes to weight, not admissibility.