SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Brian Wright, who was injured while working as an assistant conductor for appellee Arkansas & Missouri Railroad Company (AMR), brought suit against AMR pursuant to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq., and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. § 20701, et seq. The district court2 granted AMR’s motion for summary judgment on Wright’s LIA claim after holding that the train was not “in use” at the time of the accident. Wright’s FELA claim proceeded to trial, and the jury awarded him total damages amounting to $92,000. But because the jury also determined that Wright was 40 percent at fault, his net recovery was $55,200.
Wright appeals on three grounds: (1) the district court applied different standards for proximate causation when it submitted the parties’ theories of negligence and contributory negligence; (2) the district court admitted irrelevant evidence solely designed to prejudice Wright; and [615]*615(3) the district court erred by holding that the LIA did not apply. We affirm the district court on each ground.
I. Background
On November 11, 2005, Wright was employed by AMR as a trainee for the position of brakeman/conduetor. Wright arrived at AMR’s rail yard in Fort Smith, Arkansas, shortly before 7:00 a.m., while it was still dark outside, and began preparing for a run on AMR’s locomotive with two other employees. After receiving and organizing papers detailing the crew’s job orders, Wright climbed onto the locomotive to put up his bags. As he was coming back down the ladder of the locomotive, he slipped on an oil-covered step, fell to the ground, and injured his left shoulder and back.
At the time of the accident, the locomotive was on a “repair in place” (RIP) track undergoing a daily inspection by Bobby Locust. The locomotive had been parked on the track since the previous evening. Locust was tasked with inspecting the locomotive each morning prior to the engineering crew’s scheduled departure at 7:00 a.m. According to Locust, he placed blue flags at the north and south ends of the locomotive. Then he started the engine and checked various parts of the locomotive including the oil and other fluids, brakes, and pistons. He testified that the last thing he did was to check the steps and walkways for grease and oil. Although he had not completed inspecting the locomotive, he had completed an inspection card listing a completion time of 6:10 a.m.
The parties vigorously disputed the exact time that the accident occurred3 and whether Locust had completed the inspection at the time of the accident. The parties also disputed the practice of boarding locomotives that were still “blue flagged.” Wright testified that crew members routinely boarded locomotives to load their equipment while inspections were still underway. AMR countered that employees were subject to an unwritten rule prohibiting them from boarding locomotives before they were released by an inspector.
On the day of the accident, Wright was treated for his injuries at an outpatient clinic. He received follow-up care for two months after the accident. AMR assigned Wright to Ozark Transmodal, Inc., its sister company, where he was assigned to light-duty work such as sweeping floors and picking up trash.
On January 13, 2006, Wright left work early because he was not feeling well. He candidly admits that he did not notify his supervisor before leaving. AMR fired Wright after he left work that day. Ron Sparks, AMR’s corporate representative, testified that he found Wright that same afternoon at a casino in Roland, Oklahoma. Wright later brought suit against AMR for his injuries. After a jury trial, Wright recovered $55,200 in damages. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Wright claims three prejudicial errors: (1) the district court applied different standards for proximate causation when it submitted the parties’ theories of negligence and contributory negligence; (2) the district court admitted irrelevant evidence solely designed to prejudice Wright; and (3) the district court erred by holding that the LIA did not apply. We will address each issue in turn.
[616]*616A. Jury Instructions
Wright first argues that the district court erred in applying different proximate cause standards for negligence and contributory negligence when it submitted the jury instructions.
We review jury instruction submissions for abuse of discretion. Rush v. Wyeth (In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.), 514 F.3d 825, 829 (8th Cir.2008). The district court is given “broad discretion in choosing the form and language of the instructions.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). We will reverse only where the instructions “taken as a whole and viewed in the light of the evidence and applicable law” do not “fairly and accurately submit[ ] the issues to the jury.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). This error must “affect[] a party’s substantial rights.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Wright argues that the district court’s decision to apply a lighter burden for proximate causation for AMR’s allegation of contributory negligence than for his allegation of negligence was in express derogation of Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158, 127 S.Ct. 799, 166 L.Ed.2d 638 (2007). In Norfolk, the plaintiff was injured while working for a railroad company in Indiana and sued under FELA. Id. at 160-61, 127 S.Ct. 799. After a jury awarded plaintiff $1.5 million in damages, he appealed, arguing that the jury instructions reflected a more lenient causation standard for railroad negligence than for employee contributory negligence. Id. at 160, 127 S.Ct. 799. The instructions directed the jury to find the plaintiff contributorily negligent if he was negligent and that negligence “ ‘directly contributed to cause’ the injury.” Id. at 161, 127 S.Ct. 799 (quoting Mo. Approved Jury Instr., Civ., No. 32.07(B), p. 519 (6th ed.2002)). Conversely, the instructions allowed “a finding of railroad negligence if the railroad was negligent and its negligence contributed ‘in whole or in part’ to the injury.” Id. (quoting Mo. Approved Jury Instr., Civ., No. 24.01 (1964)). The Court noted that FELA did not expressly depart from the common law approach that applied the same causation standard to both plaintiff and defendant negligence. Id. at 168, 127 S.Ct. 799. The Court stated that “it is difficult to reduce damages ‘in proportion’ to the employee’s negligence if the relevance of each party’s negligence to the injury is measured by a different standard of causation.” Id. at 169, 127 S.Ct. 799. Because different standards were applied below, the Court remanded the case for a determination of whether a new trial was needed. Id. at 172, 127 S.Ct. 799.4
Here, both the negligence5 and eontrib[617]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Brian Wright, who was injured while working as an assistant conductor for appellee Arkansas & Missouri Railroad Company (AMR), brought suit against AMR pursuant to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq., and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. § 20701, et seq. The district court2 granted AMR’s motion for summary judgment on Wright’s LIA claim after holding that the train was not “in use” at the time of the accident. Wright’s FELA claim proceeded to trial, and the jury awarded him total damages amounting to $92,000. But because the jury also determined that Wright was 40 percent at fault, his net recovery was $55,200.
Wright appeals on three grounds: (1) the district court applied different standards for proximate causation when it submitted the parties’ theories of negligence and contributory negligence; (2) the district court admitted irrelevant evidence solely designed to prejudice Wright; and [615]*615(3) the district court erred by holding that the LIA did not apply. We affirm the district court on each ground.
I. Background
On November 11, 2005, Wright was employed by AMR as a trainee for the position of brakeman/conduetor. Wright arrived at AMR’s rail yard in Fort Smith, Arkansas, shortly before 7:00 a.m., while it was still dark outside, and began preparing for a run on AMR’s locomotive with two other employees. After receiving and organizing papers detailing the crew’s job orders, Wright climbed onto the locomotive to put up his bags. As he was coming back down the ladder of the locomotive, he slipped on an oil-covered step, fell to the ground, and injured his left shoulder and back.
At the time of the accident, the locomotive was on a “repair in place” (RIP) track undergoing a daily inspection by Bobby Locust. The locomotive had been parked on the track since the previous evening. Locust was tasked with inspecting the locomotive each morning prior to the engineering crew’s scheduled departure at 7:00 a.m. According to Locust, he placed blue flags at the north and south ends of the locomotive. Then he started the engine and checked various parts of the locomotive including the oil and other fluids, brakes, and pistons. He testified that the last thing he did was to check the steps and walkways for grease and oil. Although he had not completed inspecting the locomotive, he had completed an inspection card listing a completion time of 6:10 a.m.
The parties vigorously disputed the exact time that the accident occurred3 and whether Locust had completed the inspection at the time of the accident. The parties also disputed the practice of boarding locomotives that were still “blue flagged.” Wright testified that crew members routinely boarded locomotives to load their equipment while inspections were still underway. AMR countered that employees were subject to an unwritten rule prohibiting them from boarding locomotives before they were released by an inspector.
On the day of the accident, Wright was treated for his injuries at an outpatient clinic. He received follow-up care for two months after the accident. AMR assigned Wright to Ozark Transmodal, Inc., its sister company, where he was assigned to light-duty work such as sweeping floors and picking up trash.
On January 13, 2006, Wright left work early because he was not feeling well. He candidly admits that he did not notify his supervisor before leaving. AMR fired Wright after he left work that day. Ron Sparks, AMR’s corporate representative, testified that he found Wright that same afternoon at a casino in Roland, Oklahoma. Wright later brought suit against AMR for his injuries. After a jury trial, Wright recovered $55,200 in damages. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Wright claims three prejudicial errors: (1) the district court applied different standards for proximate causation when it submitted the parties’ theories of negligence and contributory negligence; (2) the district court admitted irrelevant evidence solely designed to prejudice Wright; and (3) the district court erred by holding that the LIA did not apply. We will address each issue in turn.
[616]*616A. Jury Instructions
Wright first argues that the district court erred in applying different proximate cause standards for negligence and contributory negligence when it submitted the jury instructions.
We review jury instruction submissions for abuse of discretion. Rush v. Wyeth (In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.), 514 F.3d 825, 829 (8th Cir.2008). The district court is given “broad discretion in choosing the form and language of the instructions.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). We will reverse only where the instructions “taken as a whole and viewed in the light of the evidence and applicable law” do not “fairly and accurately submit[ ] the issues to the jury.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). This error must “affect[] a party’s substantial rights.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Wright argues that the district court’s decision to apply a lighter burden for proximate causation for AMR’s allegation of contributory negligence than for his allegation of negligence was in express derogation of Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158, 127 S.Ct. 799, 166 L.Ed.2d 638 (2007). In Norfolk, the plaintiff was injured while working for a railroad company in Indiana and sued under FELA. Id. at 160-61, 127 S.Ct. 799. After a jury awarded plaintiff $1.5 million in damages, he appealed, arguing that the jury instructions reflected a more lenient causation standard for railroad negligence than for employee contributory negligence. Id. at 160, 127 S.Ct. 799. The instructions directed the jury to find the plaintiff contributorily negligent if he was negligent and that negligence “ ‘directly contributed to cause’ the injury.” Id. at 161, 127 S.Ct. 799 (quoting Mo. Approved Jury Instr., Civ., No. 32.07(B), p. 519 (6th ed.2002)). Conversely, the instructions allowed “a finding of railroad negligence if the railroad was negligent and its negligence contributed ‘in whole or in part’ to the injury.” Id. (quoting Mo. Approved Jury Instr., Civ., No. 24.01 (1964)). The Court noted that FELA did not expressly depart from the common law approach that applied the same causation standard to both plaintiff and defendant negligence. Id. at 168, 127 S.Ct. 799. The Court stated that “it is difficult to reduce damages ‘in proportion’ to the employee’s negligence if the relevance of each party’s negligence to the injury is measured by a different standard of causation.” Id. at 169, 127 S.Ct. 799. Because different standards were applied below, the Court remanded the case for a determination of whether a new trial was needed. Id. at 172, 127 S.Ct. 799.4
Here, both the negligence5 and eontrib[617]*617utory negligence6 instructions permitted the jury to allow the claim if Wright’s injury “resulted in whole or in part” from the negligence. These instructions, unlike the Norfolk instructions, do not apply different causation standards.
Wright asserts that the jury should have been instructed that AMR’s failure to warn Wright not to board the train was a potential cause of Wright’s injuries. Specifically, the district court refused Wright’s request that the jury be instructed that it could find AMR negligent if AMR “failed to warn [Wright] it was unsafe to board the locomotive.” The district court instead instructed the jury that it could find AMR negligent if AMR, inter alia, “failed to warn [Wright] of the presence of any oil.” These instructions are sufficiently close and legally adequate such that no abuse of discretion occurred in choosing one over the other. Requiring AMR not only to warn of oil on the steps but also to warn that it is unsafe to board when that condition is present is unnecessary. The district court’s instruction would hold Wright liable if the jury found that AMR had a duty to warn and failed to do so. Moreover, Wright’s own negligence instruction was virtually identical to the instruction given.
Wright correctly cites Ackley v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., for the proposition that a railroad has a duty to reasonably foresee unsafe working conditions and that a jury instruction negating this duty is prejudicial. 820 F.2d 263, 268 (8th Cir.1987). The instruction given to the jury in this case did not negate AMR’s duty to reasonably foresee unsafe working conditions. See id. In fact, the jury instruction required the jury to find that the first element of negligence is satisfied if AMR “failed to provide reasonably safe conditions for work.” Therefore, the jury instruction was not prejudicial in this regard.
Finally, Wright argues that he is entitled to his jury instruction so long as it is legally and factually correct. In Rahn v. Hawkins, 464 F.3d 813, 817 (8th Cir.2006), the issue at trial was whether the officers had used excessive force under the Fourth Amendment when police officers shot and maced the plaintiff. Id. The plaintiff proffered a jury instruction that specifically addressed when officers may use deadly force, but the district court opted for a more general instruction. Id. Because the [618]*618district court’s instruction was “markedly different” than the plaintiffs legally and factually correct instruction, we remanded for a new trial. Id. at 818. In the present case, Wright’s jury instruction is not “markedly different” from the final instruction. See id. As noted above, the instructions are virtually identical.7 Because the district court has broad discretion in choosing the language of jury instructions, In re Prempro, 514 F.3d at 829, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
B. Admissibility of Evidence
Wright next argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that: (1) AMR terminated Wright after his injuries occurred; (2) AMR found Wright at a casino after he left work; and (3) prior to the accident, Wright had been disciplined for missing work due to illness without calling a supervisor. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. A district court is given “broad discretion” to determine the relevance of evidentiary matters. Smith v. Tenet Healthsystem SL, Inc., 436 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir.2006). We will reverse that decision only if there is a “clear abuse of discretion.” Suggs v. Stanley, 324 F.3d 672, 682 (8th Cir.2003).
1. Termination Evidence
Wright argues that evidence regarding his termination was irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible and argues that this evidence was prejudicial because it suggested his lost wages resulted from his termination and not from his injuries. He contends that Martinez v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 82 F.3d 223 (8th Cir.1996), forecloses admission of evidence to show that his lost wages were caused by his termination rather than the injuries for which AMR was responsible. In Martinez, we held that evidence of appellant’s dismissal was properly limited where it was offered solely to prove that appellant would not have continued working at the company for purposes of calculating future earnings. Id. at 227. Thirty minutes after appellant injured himself by falling off the end of a ramp used to service trains, he was terminated at an unrelated disciplinary hearing. Id. at 225. After a jury verdict for appellant on his FELA claim, the railroad appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred by excluding testimony that appellant had been terminated. Id. at 225, 227. The railroad sought to admit this evidence to rebut [619]*619appellant’s expert testimony that appellant “would have continued working as a trainman ... until the age of 67” and to rebut the expert’s calculation of appellant’s loss of future earning capacity. Id. at 227. We held that it was proper to exclude this evidence because appellant’s termination was wholly irrelevant to the issues presented at the trial and would have been more prejudicial than probative of those issues. Id. at 228.
Here, the district court initially instructed the parties to avoid the topic of Wright’s dismissal because it was irrelevant to the issues presented at trial. This instruction followed Martinez. The court further stated that the evidence would be inadmissible so long as Wright did not open the door to its admission. We must determine whether Wright did indeed open that door.
At trial, Wright testified that he was not “physically able to go back to work for the railroad” and that he “had to leave work because [he] couldn’t any longer do that work.” Based on these statements, the district court found that Wright had opened the door and that it would be prejudicially unfair to leave the jury with the impression that physical limitations from the accident were the only reason Wright no longer worked at AMR. The district court, therefore, allowed AMR to introduce evidence of Wright’s dismissal for misconduct. The district court did not admit this evidence to deny future earnings under FELA beyond the termination date, see Martinez, 82 F.3d at 227, but merely to rebut the impression left by Wright’s own testimony. District courts are given broad discretion to determine the relevance of evidence, and we will only reverse if there is a clear abuse of discretion. Suggs, 324 F.3d at 682. Although the district court’s call was close, it was not an abuse of discretion.
2. Other Evidence
Wright also argues that the district court abused its discretion by allowing evidence that he went to a casino after leaving work early and that he previously missed work without calling a supervisor. He contends that evidence of other crimes or wrongs is inadmissible unless relevant to a material issue other than character of a party. United States v. Felix, 867 F.2d 1068, 1072 (8th Cir.1989) (stating that “for evidence of prior bad acts to be admissible it must be relevant to a material issue other than the character of the defendant”). Wright’s statement of the law is correct, but his conclusion is erroneous because the evidence presented here was relevant to a material issue other than character. The district court determined that the evidence could bear on Wright’s credibility in light of the fact that he testified that he left work early due to illness. The court also found that evidence that Wright failed to call a supervisor when he missed work was relevant to rebut Wright’s contention that he loved his job. The district court is accorded broad discretion in evidentiary matters. Id. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence.
C. LIA Claim
Finally, Wright argues that the LIA should apply because the locomotive was “in use” as shown by its preparation for imminent departure. The district court determined that the locomotive was not “in use” at the time of the accident and granted AMR’s summary judgment motion. In reaching its conclusion, the district court noted that Wright was injured while “the locomotive was parked on a repair in place track with blue flags at the ends of the locomotive and on the throttle and locks on the switch. Further, the [620]*620locomotive was still undergoing its daily inspection and it had not been released to the crew for use.” For authority, the district court cited an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion Maynard v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., No. 94-1285, 1995 WL 131363 (4th Cir.1995) (unpublished per curiam), and a North Dakota district court decision footnote describing the usage of blue flags, see Carder v. Ind. Harbor Belt R.R., 205 F.Supp.2d 981, 985 n. 3 (N.D.Ind.2002). We review de novo a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment. M.Y. v. Spec. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Minneapolis Pub. Sch., 544 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir.2008).
Under the LIA, a railroad carrier may not “use or allow to be used a locomotive ... on its railroad line” unless the locomotive “and its parts and appurtenances” are, inter alia, “in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury.” 49 U.S.C. § 20701(1). If the LIA applies, then the railroad will be held strictly liable and may not rely on the defenses of contributory negligence or assumption of risk. 45 U.S.C. §§ 53-54. The “in use” limitation gives the railroad an opportunity to remedy hazardous conditions before strict liability attaches to claims made by injured workers. Whether the LIA applies turns on whether the locomotive was “in use,” which is a question of law for the district court. Steer v. Burlington N., Inc., 720 F.2d 975, 977 n. 4 (8th Cir.1983) (applying the Boiler Inspection Act, which is the precursor to the LIA).
In Steer, we held that the locomotive was not “in use” because it was “being serviced in a place of repair.” Id. at 976. The plaintiff was injured while repairing a locomotive that “had been taken to the ‘Asparagus Patch,’ a place for removal of locomotives and their repair.” Id. We relied on the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning that ‘‘‘injuries directly resulting from the inspection, repair, or servicing of railroad equipment located at a maintenance facility’ ” are excluded from the Boiler Inspection Act’s coverage. Id. at 976-77 (quoting Angell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 618 F.2d 260, 262 (4th Cir.1980)). Therefore, we upheld the district court’s finding that the locomotive was not “in use.” Id. at 977. Other than Steer, we have not decided a case involving the standard to apply to determine whether a locomotive is “in use.” Other circuits have addressed this issue.
In Angelí, the Fourth Circuit held that the locomotive was “in use” where the railway had “okayed” the locomotive for service. 618 F.2d at 262. The plaintiff, a machinist, was injured while the engine was on a “service track” and had been “blue flagged.” Id. at 261. At the time of the injury, “all servicing, maintenance and inspection work had already been performed.” Id. The court noted that Congress excluded injuries “directly resulting from the inspection, repair, or servicing of railroad equipment located at a maintenance facility.” Id. at 262 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 1974, 61st Cong., 3d Sess. 3 (1911)). Angelí involved an injury that occurred after inspection, repair, and servicing had been completed and “during the uncoupling of a ‘readied’ engine in preparation for moving it to a nearby track to pull a train a few hours later.” Id. Because the engine was not in need of further repair or servicing and had been “okayed” by railway officials, it was “in use” and the statute applied despite the presence of blue flags. Id.
Subsequently, the Fourth Circuit revisited its “in use” analysis and adopted a multi-factor test to determine whether a train is in use. Deans v. CSX Transp., Inc., 152 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.1998). In Deans, the court held that “to determine [621]*621whether a train is ‘in use’ for purposes of the FSAA [Federal Safety Appliances Act], the primary factors we consider are where the train was located at the time of the accident and the activity of the injured party.” Id. The court expressly rejected any analysis that would make a single factor, such as release from inspection, dispositive.8 The court ultimately held that the locomotive was “in use” because the train “already had its engine coupled to it and was standing on a track in the rail yard in preparation for imminent departure' — not in storage or waiting to be moved into a repair location.” Id. at 330.
Wright relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Terminal Railroad Ass’n, 303 U.S. 10, 11-12, 58 S.Ct. 426, 82 L.Ed. 614 (1938),9 and interprets it as compelling reversal. In Brady, a rail employee was injured while inspecting a car that was placed on a receiving track temporarily for an inspection. Id. at 11-12, 58 S.Ct. 426. The Court held that such a car is “in use” so long as it would continue to its next destination if it passed inspection. Id. at 13, 58 S.Ct. 426. The Court noted that the case was not a situation in which a defective car had reached a place of repair. Id. Brady is distinguishable, however, because the locomotive in that case never ceased to be “in use” during its temporary stop on the receiving track because it was “still in use, though motionless.” Id. Brady does demonstrate that undergoing inspection, without more, is probably insufficient to establish that a train is not in use. See id. But in our case, it is undisputed that the train was not in use when initially placed on the RIP track for the night and blue-flagged. The crucial issue is determining whether the locomotive could be legally considered “in use” at the time of Wright’s accident.
We hold that determination of whether a train is “in use” is to be made based upon the totality of the circumstances at the time of the injury. Based upon this record, we hold the district court correctly concluded that the locomotive was not in use in denying Wright’s summary judgment motion.
The district court took into account that the locomotive was parked on an RIP track and marked by blue flags located on both ends of the locomotive and on its throttle.10 In fact, the inspector had placed locks on the switch. The court noted that the locomotive was still undergoing inspection or service and had not been released to its crew. The court mentioned, but apparently gave little weight to, the scheduled 7:00 a.m. departure and Wright’s activity. In granting summary judgment, the district court concluded that, “[u]nder these circumstances, the locomotive cannot be said to have been ‘in use.’ ” The trial itself produced conflicting testimony regarding the completion of the inspection and whether Wright had permission to enter the locomotive. Although [622]*622the locomotive stood on an RIP track, it was not at a maintenance facility. The train was scheduled for departure at 7:00 a.m., and Wright’s injury occurred between 6:30 a.m. and 7:10 a.m. At the time of the accident, Wright, a conductor trainee, was loading his gear onto the train ostensibly in preparation for departure once the locomotive was cleared.
No single fact present is conclusive. The district court placed substantial weight on the location of the locomotive and its “blue-flagged” status and locked switch. The court properly considered this status in its analysis as a significant but not dispositive factor. The blue flag is widely recognized throughout the railroad industry as a signal, warning crews not to move locomotives in the surrounding area. Carder, 205 F.Supp.2d at 985. In fact, blue flagging is mandated as part of the regulations of the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Operating Procedures.11 The court properly considered these factors and other surrounding circumstances in reaching its ultimate conclusion. Therefore, the court did not err in determining that the locomotive was not “in use” at the time of the accident.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we affirm the district court.