MARSHALL v. SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING 50 Motion for Reconsideration. The Defendant's motion reminds the Court that the Plaintiff has been extremely vague about their precise theory of negligence per se. Accordingly, the Court orders the Plaintiff to file within 14 days a statement of the specific statutes or regulations the Plaintiff's contend the Defendant violated and to further state how the violations occurred. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/29/2015. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
BENJAMIN LEE MARSHALL, SR.

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY )
)
Defendant.
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-425(MTT)

ORDER
Defendant Sandersville Railroad Company has moved for reconsideration of the
Court’s June 10, 2015 order denying its motion for partial summary judgment on the
claim of Benjamin Lee Marshall, Sr. for an alleged violation of the Railroad Worker
Protection Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 214.301, et seq. (Doc. 50). The Defendant
suggests that the Court’s order addressed an argument based on common law
negligence per se principles, an argument that the Defendant says it never made. The
Defendant concedes that the common law’s limitation on a Defendant’s liability for
negligence per se does not apply to FELA claims.
The Defendant’s admittedly vague briefing, due in no small part to the Plaintiff’s
vague allegations of negligence per se, had little to say with regard to the legal basis for
the Defendant’s motion. At oral argument, however, it seemed to the Court that the
Defendant was basing its argument on common law principles. In response to a
question from the Court, counsel said the analysis was “similar” to the common law
analysis. Counsel argued that various regulations could not apply to the Plaintiff’s claim
because he was not subjected to the harm that the regulations were intended to

alleviate. The regulations, counsel argued, were only intended to cover activity
associated with being hit by moving trains. “So that’s my point Your Honor is that the
RWP regulation on job briefings has only to do with protection against getting hit by
moving trains or equipment which again is not dispatch situation.”
The Court appreciates the Defendant’s clarifications. Given the circumstances,
however, the Court sees no reason to reconsider its order and the Defendant’s motion
is DENIED. However, the Defendant’s motion reminds the Court that the Plaintiff has
been extremely vague about their precise theory of negligence per se. Accordingly, the
Court orders the Plaintiff to file within 14 days a statement of the specific statutes or
regulations the Plaintiff’s contend the Defendant violated and to further state how the
violations occurred.
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of June, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-