On June 8, 2011, plaintiff Danny Byrom, 55, a machinist for BNSF Railway Co., was working at the Barstow Locomotive Facility, where he was operating a locomotive “wheel truing” machine, made by Hegenscheidt MFD. A “wheel truing” is a very large, in-ground machine that cuts and reshapes locomotive wheels that are out of round. Byrom had been doing the job for over 15 years, and he had spent much of that time operating the machine. On this day, Byrom was in the process of setting up the machine to cut the next wheel of a locomotive and sent the machine’s movable rails into the fully open position. However, the rails stopped about halfway and the machine “locked up”. As a result, he began to troubleshoot the problem. The machine has “rail closed limits switches,” located in the vicinity of where the movable rails contact the stationary rail when the movable rails are closed. When the machine is operating properly, the only way to close the rails is to press the “rails in” button, continuously, on the control panel. If the operator takes his finger off the “rails in” button, the rails should immediately stop closing. Since Byrom knew that there was no other person at the machine, he felt there was no danger in depressing both of the limit switches, or touching them with his hands, so he placed a plastic yellow box containing metal wheel cutters onto the rail closed limit switch for the south rail. He then planned to do the same for the north rail, but he noticed metal debris piled on a ledge below the closed limit switch. As a result, he began to sweep the debris away with his left hand. However, while he was in the process of sweeping away the debris, the movable rail closed, without warning, and trapped his hand against the stationary rail. Byron called for help, and two co-workers came to his aid. They subsequently tried to open the movable rail so that Byrom could pull his hand out, but, unfortunately, in their first attempt, they caused the rail to close harder onto Byrom’s hand, crushing the little finger of his left hand. Byrom sued BNSF Railway Co. (also known as Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.), alleging violations of the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). Byrom was off of work for six months and when he returned to his regular job, the railroad cited him for an investigation hearing to determine if he had placed the yellow box containing metal wheel cutters onto the rails closed limit switch. BNSF contended that was an unsafe work practice. Fearing he would lose his job, Byrom lied and denied the charge. BNSF imposed discipline, finding that he had worked unsafely and caused his own injury. A month later, the railroad cited him for another investigation, alleging that Byrom he had lied during the first investigation hearing about how he had caused the injury. At this second hearing, Byrom again denied the charges. BNSF then fired Byrom for dishonesty. His appeal of the termination was unsuccessful, and it could not be made a part of his FELA claim for damages. At trial, Byrom admitted that he had, in fact, manipulated the switches in order to reboot the machine. He also admitted that he had lied, at both hearings, about what exactly he was doing at the time of the incident. Byrom alleged that BNSF failed to adequately maintain the Hegenscheidt machine and failed to train other employees in “emergency procedures” that would have advised them how to extricate someone who had been trapped in one of the pinch points on the machine. Defense counsel argued that Byrom “has been unable to produce any evidence that BNSF was negligent,” other than “unsupported” allegations that the machine “malfunctioned” in unspecified ways at various times in the years before the incident. Counsel also argued that Byrom had no facts that could establish that the machine malfunctioned due to a lack of maintenance or that any of the alleged malfunctions (past or present) were the result of some negligence by BNSF. Defense counsel further contended that BNSF had “no duty to provide training” in “emergency procedures” for incidents that were not foreseeable and because Byrom, himself, was the one who was giving the instructions to the employees who were trying to assist him. In addition, defense counsel argued that BNSF “simply had no duty to train its employees on emergency procedures relating to ‘unforeseeable incidents’ and that Byrom was not credible either about the incident or his residual , given his admitted dishonesty in the BNSF investigations., Byrom suffered a crush injury to the little finger of his left, non-dominant hand. He was subsequently rushed to a hospital, but the finger could not be saved. As a result, Byrom underwent a ray amputation of the finger the next day. The procedure consisted of a surgical removal of the entire finger along with the corresponding metacarpal bones in the hand. Byrom missed six months of work due to his injury, and he claimed that he suffers from residual physical pain, cramping, and loss of grip strength in his left hand. He also claimed that he suffers from emotional distress. Thus, Byrom sought recovery of $30,600 in past loss of wages and an unspecified amount of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. He made no claim for future wage loss, as he had been terminated from his job following BNSF investigations into the incident. He also did not make a claim for recovery of past and future medical costs. Defense counsel contended that Byrom could not establish the required causal connection between any specific conduct by BNSF and his injury. Counsel argued that because Byrom had indeed caused his own injury, and was the sole cause of that injury, he cannot recover from BNSF. The defense’s medical examiner testified that any residual physical complaints could not be attributed to the injury because the surgery was a complete success. Defense counsel also disputed the testimony of Byrom, his wife, and his daughter about Byrom’s alleged diminished ability to enjoy his usual family activities and hobbies due to his injury. In addition, defense counsel contended that since Byrom had a pain pump implanted in 2008 for chronic back pain, his claims regarding his pre-injury activity level were exaggerated.