In June 2011, plaintiff Burley Tompkins, 37, a locomotive engineer for Union Pacific Railroad Co., was making his second trip back when an undesired emergency stop occurred. He claimed the stop caused a slack action to occur, which resulted in him being jostled about inside the train car. Tompkins claimed that he previously fell at the yard in Oroville in 1998 when he was startled by a trespasser. He claimed that the fall resulted in to his back, but that he did not report the incident to his manager because the manager allegedly threatened to fire him before. Tompkins also claimed that as a result of the incident, he later sustained back at a gym while lifting weights in 2010. He subsequently required multiple surgeries before returning to work on light duty in April 2011. Two months later, after returning to full duty, Tompkins was making his second trip back when there was an undesired emergency stop, causing him to be jostled about inside the train car. He claimed that as a result, he sustained a lumbar disc injury, requiring additional surgeries. Tompkins sued Union Pacific Railroad Co. for both the 1998 incident and the June 2011 incident. He alleged equitable estoppel on the statute of limitations, as he claimed he did not report the 1998 incident due to the manager’s alleged threat. Thus, Tompkins alleged that he was injured during both incidents due to violations of the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, the Locomotive Inspection Act, and the Safety Appliance Act, as well as due to violations of federal regulations. The 1998 incident was ultimately dismissed from the case on summary judgment, as the court found no evidence of negligence. Thus, the matter went to trial on the June 2011 slack-action incident. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Union Pacific Railroad failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace and that a defect in the train caused it to stop suddenly. Specifically, counsel contended that there was excessive heat in the trailing unit of the locomotive, which caused the computer system to shut down and stop the train. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Union Pacific Railroad failed to keep the unit cool and failed to address a braking problem on the train. Defense counsel argued that the train’s sudden stop was an anomaly and could not have been predicted. Specifically, counsel contended that the anomaly put the train into an emergency braking application, which was a fail-safe mode. Defense counsel also argued that there was no evidence of the train stopping due to some violation of federal law., Tompkins claimed he sustained a lumbar disc bulge at the L3-4 level, requiring a lumbar fusion and installation of a spinal cord stimulator. The plaintiff’s physical medicine and rehabilitation expert opined that because Tompkins was previously fused at his L4-5 and L5-S1 levels, he was more susceptible to injury, as the L3-4 area was adjacent. The expert also opined that Tompkins could never work in any capacity. The defense’s pain management expert opined that Tompkins did not suffer a disc injury and that Tompkins’ ongoing pain complaints were related to his serious pre-existing . He also testified that Tompkins could return to work in some capacity, opining that Tompkins was not completely disabled and could return to work in an alternate job. The defense’s biomechanics expert opined that the forces involved in the train’s stopping were insufficient to cause the alleged lumbar disc injury. Defense counsel noted that Union Pacific Railroad offered Tompkins the opportunity to pursue other jobs at the company, including a management job, but that Tompkins refused to pursue alternative jobs. The court refused to give an eggshell instruction to the jury, and the jury was only to decide if Tompkins’ injury was aggravated by his pre-existing condition.