A simpler example for the problem is

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{bigfoot}
\usepackage{kantlipsum}
\begin{document}
abc
\footnote{abc\kant[1-8]}

\newpage
abc
\footnote{blub}

\end{document}

bigfoot has obviously a problem with long footnotes followed by more footnotes.

The problem appears the first time in texlive 2015, and this indicates the source of the problem: at that time latex change the allocation system for extended registers and bigfoot adjusted to this change by longer loading etex. But bigfoot tests in one place \count266 which with etex contained the marks allocation, while in the new system \count256 should be used.

Correcting this number solves the problem:

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{bigfoot}
\usepackage{kantlipsum}

\usepackage{xpatch}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\FN@allmarks{266}{256}{}{\fail}
\makeatother
\begin{document}
abc
\footnote{abc\kant[1-8]}

\newpage
abc
\footnote{blub}

\end{document}

Inform the maintainer so that he adjusts bigfoot.

A simpler example for the problem is

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{bigfoot}
\usepackage{kantlipsum}
\begin{document}
abc
\footnote{abc\kant[1-8]}

\newpage
abc
\footnote{blub}

\end{document}

bigfoot has obviously a problem with long footnotes followed by more footnotes.

The problem appears the first time in texlive 2015, and this indicates the source of the problem: at that time latex change the allocation system for extended registers and bigfoot adjusted to this change by not loading etex anymore. But bigfoot tests in one place \count266 which with etex contained the marks allocation, while in the new system \count256 should be used.

Correcting this number solves the problem:

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{bigfoot}
\usepackage{kantlipsum}

\usepackage{xpatch}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\FN@allmarks{266}{256}{}{\fail}
\makeatother
\begin{document}
abc
\footnote{abc\kant[1-8]}

\newpage
abc
\footnote{blub}

\end{document}

Inform the maintainer so that he adjusts bigfoot.