Stephens et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 30 ) is DENIED. Defendant's Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Dkt. 31 ) is DEEMED MOOT. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 39 ) is GRANTE D. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 40 ) is DENIED. The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with F.R.C.P. 58. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
WILLIAM G. STEPHENS and NORMA
STEPHENS

Case No. 1:17-cv-00385-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Union Pacific Railroad Company’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (Dkt. 30), Union Pacific’s Motion for Summary Judgment and, in the
alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 39), Union Pacific’s Motion to
Take Judicial Notice (Dkt. 31), and William and Norma Stephens’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 40). The motions are fully briefed,
and the Court heard oral argument on July 17, 2018. The Court now issues the following
Memorandum Decision and Order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff William Stephens was born in 1944 in Weiser, Idaho, and resided there
until 1954. Compl. ¶ 7, Dkt. 1. During that time, Union Pacific employed Stephens’s

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

father, Rollie Stephens, at its Weiser roundhouse. Id.; Coleman Letter at 1, Dkt. 46. The
Stephens allege Rollie Stephens was responsible for performing maintenance work on
steam engines, including the removal of insulation which, along with other products used
at Union Pacific facilities, contained amosite asbestos. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8, Dkt. 1.
The Stephens allege Rollie Stephens brought asbestos dust home on his clothing
and person from work at the Weiser roundhouse, exposing his son to carcinogenic dust.
Id. at ¶ 9. They further allege Stephens’s exposure to the asbestos carried home from his
father’s work on steam locomotives was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
Id. at ¶ 10.
The Stephens brought suit against Union Pacific in September 2017. Id. at ¶ 3, pp.
19. The action is before this court upon diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. The Complaint alleges four causes of actions: (1) negligence, (2) gross
negligence/recklessness, (3) strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity, and (4)
loss of consortium. Id. at ¶¶ 30-48. At oral argument, the Stephens indicated they are
forgoing Count Three and proceeding on the remaining causes of action.
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to move for
judgment on the pleadings “after the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay
trial.” Judgment is appropriate when the moving party establishes on the face of the
pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990). In ruling on such a motion, the court must accept the
allegations of the non-moving party as true. Id.
In determining whether a complaint states a cognizable claim under Rule 12(c),
courts apply the same legal standards applicable to motions brought under Rule 12(b)(6).
Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054, n.4
(9th Cir. 2011) (“we have said that Rule 12(c) is functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6)
and that the same standard of review applies to motions brought under either rule”).
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful
in fact.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal may be
based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged
under a cognizable legal theory. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001);
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
If the court looks to evidence beyond the pleadings, the motion must be converted
into one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civil P. 12(d). But the court may consider
attachments to the complaint and documents referred to in the complaint though not
attached to it, where authenticity is not in question. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1555
n. 19; Townsend v. Columbia Operations, 667 F.2d 844, 848-49 (9th Cir. 1982).
Dismissal may be appropriate when the plaintiff has included sufficient allegations
disclosing some absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119
F.3d 778, 783, n. 1 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that “[i]f the pleadings establish facts

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

compelling a decision one way, that is as good as if depositions and other . . . evidence on
summary judgment establishes the identical facts”).
A dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is beyond doubt that the
complaint “could not be saved by any amendment.” Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728,
737 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit has held that “in dismissals for failure to state a
claim, a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the
pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by
the allegation of other facts.” Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California
Collection Service, Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). The issue is not whether
plaintiff will prevail but whether he “is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”
Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.
2007) (citations omitted).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to any claim or
defense, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). One of the principal purposes of the
summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims . . . .”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). It is “not a disfavored procedural
shortcut,” but is instead the “principal tool[ ] by which factually insufficient claims or
defenses [can] be isolated and prevented from going to trial with the attendant
unwarranted consumption of public and private resources.” Id. at 327. “[T]he mere

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). There must be a genuine dispute as to any material fact – a fact
“that may affect the outcome of the case.” Id. at 248.
The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
and the Court must not make credibility findings. Id. at 255. Direct testimony of the
non-movant must be believed, however implausible. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d
1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). On the other hand, the Court is not required to adopt
unreasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence. McLaughlin v. Liu, 849 F.2d
1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 1988).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine dispute as to material fact. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir.
2001)(en banc). To carry this burden, the moving party need not introduce any
affirmative evidence (such as affidavits or deposition excerpts) but may simply point out
the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Fairbank v. Wunderman
Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir.2000).
This shifts the burden to the non-moving party to produce evidence sufficient to
support a jury verdict in her favor. Deveraux, 263 F.3d at 1076. The non-moving party
must go beyond the pleadings and show “by her [ ] affidavits, or by the depositions,
answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file” that a genuine dispute of material fact
exists. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

ANALYSIS
I.

Judgment on the Pleadings
Union Pacific argues that it is entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings because

Stephens cannot recover against Union Pacific as a matter of law. Motion J. Pleadings at
1, Dkt. 30. Union Pacific argues that the Locomotive Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C. § 20701,
et seq. (“LIA”) completely bars the Stephens’ lawsuit “because Congress has the
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate locomotive equipment.” Id. Because the only asbestos
to which Stephens contends he was exposed is asbestos contained in locomotive
equipment, Union Pacific contends this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Id.
A.

Federal Preemption

“The Supremacy Clause empowers Congress to supplant decentralized, state-bystate regulation with uniform national rules.” Law v. Gen Motors Corp., 114 F.3d 908,
909 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2.); see also Brown v. Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Intern. Union Local 54, 468 U.S. 491, 501 (1984)
(stating that state law which interferes with federal law “creates an actual conflict and is
pre-empted by direct operation of the Supremacy Clause”). Even without an express
provision for preemption, “state law must yield to a congressional Act in at least two
circumstances.” Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000).
The first circumstance is when “state law is naturally preempted to the extent of any
conflict with a federal statute.” Id. The second circumstance, referred to as “field

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

preemption,” was considered in Kurns and is germane to the issue here. 565 U.S. at 63031. Field preemption occurs when a federal statute is deemed to implicitly override state
law, because “the scope of a statute indicates that Congress intended federal law to
occupy a field exclusively”. Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287 (1995).
In Napier v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., the Supreme Court held in an action
regarding state regulations of locomotive equipment that state legislation is precluded
because the Boiler Inspection Act1 occupied the field of regulating locomotive
equipment. 272 U.S. 605, 610 (1926) (stating “[b]ecause the standard set by the
[Interstate Commerce] Commission must prevail, requirements by the states are
precluded, however commendable or however different their purpose”).
More recently, the Supreme Court has revisited the issue in Kurns v. Railroad
Friction Products Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012), and both parties acknowledge that Kurns
is critical to the issue before the Court. Motion J. Pleadings at 1,9-12, 14-26, Dkt. 30;
Mem. Opp’n J. Pleadings at 2, 9-12, 16, 18, Dkt. 33. In Kurns, a railroad machinist
alleged state-law claims of defective design and failure to warn of the dangers of asbestos
exposure against a railroad corporation following his diagnosis of mesothelioma. 565
U.S. at 628-29. Kurns reaffirmed Napier and held the LIA pre-empted those claims
because they were directed at the field of locomotive equipment. Id. at 637. The Court

1

The Boiler Inspection Act is the predecessor to the LIA. See Kurns, 565 U.S. at 629 (2012).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

must determine whether the Stephens’ claims are directed toward locomotive equipment
and thus pre-empted by the LIA.
Negligence is not the basis for liability under the LIA. Lilly v. Grand Trunk R.R.
Co., 317 U.S. 481, 485 (1943) (noting that the LIA instead “imposes upon the carrier an
absolute and continuing duty to maintain the locomotive, and all parts and appurtenances
thereof, in proper condition, and safe to operate without unnecessary peril to life and
limb”) (quotations omitted). The LIA’s pre-emptive scope encompasses state commonlaw duties and standards of care “directed to the subject of locomotive equipment.”
Kurns, 565 U.S. at 637.
The Stephens’ claim is directed at the subject of locomotive equipment and is thus
preempted by the LIA. See id. Because there is no remedy available for the Stephens’
Complaint, Union Pacific would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law if they had
properly pled preemption as an affirmative defense. See Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at
1550. Taking the Stephens’ allegations as true, there are no set of facts where they would
be able to recover under this claim. Indeed, so much is indicated by the captions in
Stephens’ Complaint, describing their overarching general allegation: “Plaintiff Sustained
Toxic Exposure to Asbestos From Union Pacific Locomotives.” Compl. at p. 3, Dkt. 1
(emphasis omitted).
The Stephens attempt to distinguish their case by noting they are pursuing a
different type of claim from the petitioners in Kurns. Memo. Opp. Mot. Dismiss at 2, Dkt.
33. In Kurns, petitioners argued their failure to warn claims did not fall “within the LIA’s

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

pre-empted field because the basis of liability for failure to warn…is not the design or
manufacture of a product, but is instead the failure to provide adequate warnings
regarding the product’s risks.” 565 U.S. at 634 (internal quotations omitted). The
Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the subject of the claim is the relevant
determination in the question of the claims being preempted. Id. at 635 (noting that “the
gravamen of petitioners’ failure-to-warn claims is still that [petitioner] suffered harmful
consequences as a result of his exposure to asbestos contained in locomotive parts and
appurtenances”) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
The Stephens contend the subject of their claim is not in fact locomotive
equipment, but that Union Pacific negligently exposed Stephens to a “dangerous worksite
condition.” Memo. Opp. Mot. Dismiss at 2, Dkt. 33. But the term “dangerous worksite
condition” appears only once in their Complaint, stated within a claim they are no longer
pursuing. Compl. ¶ 43, Dkt. 1. The idea that the Stephens’ claim is directed toward a
dangerous worksite condition is refuted by the plain language of Paragraph 43 of the
Complaint:
“[The removal of insulation] was abnormally dangerous because the dust
from the insulation, containing inherently toxic and unreasonably
dangerous asbestos fibers, could accumulate unnoticed on and within
employee clothing, and then be transported back to the employees’ home,
unwittingly exposing his family to a dangerous worksite condition.”
Compl. ¶ 43, Dkt. 1 (emphasis added). The “dangerous worksite condition” in the
Stephens’ complaint is predicated upon asbestos released from the removal of insulation
on Union Pacific’s steam locomotives. The “gravamen” of the Stephens’ claims,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

therefore, is that Stephens “suffered harmful consequences as a result of his exposure to
asbestos contained in locomotive parts and appurtenances.” See Kurns, 565 U.S. at 635.
The Stephens rely upon Terminal Railroad Ass’n of St. Louis v. Bhd. of R.R.
Trainmen, which dealt with a state law requiring the use of a caboose on a rail car. 318
U.S. 1, 4 (1943). In the absence of caboose cars, workers were being thrown from
moving trains. Id. at 3.The Court held LIA did not preempt the Illinois-mandated caboose
requirement because state laws “have long regulated a great variety of conditions in
transportation and industry, such as sanitary facilities and conditions, safety devices, and
protections.” Id. at 6-7. Nonetheless, Terminal Railroad is inappropriate for the instant
case2: unlike the circumstances in Kurns and the instant case where the subject of
litigation was insulation pulled from steam engines, there was no federal regulation
relating to cabooses and thus the LIA and other federal regulations did not apply. Id. at 4.
The Stephens’ claim could not be cured with leave to amend. See Cook, Perkiss
and Liehe, Inc. 911 F.2d at 247. The Stephens allege the source of the fibers to which
they claim exposure is asbestos-containing products from Union Pacific’s locomotives.
Compl. at ¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 20, 21, 29, 43. Amending the complaint to allege exposure from a

2

Additionally, the Stephens cite Union Pacific R. Co. v. California Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 346
F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2003). There, the state adopted regulations mandating the railroad’s compliance with
train configuration requirements after a series of train derailments. Id. at 856-58. The Court held the LIA
did not preempt the regulations because the regulations had no effect on “the design, construction, and the
material” of locomotives, but instead regulated “the use of locomotives.” Id. at 869 (emphasizing the LIA
occupies “the field of locomotive equipment, but not locomotive use”). The Stephens’ reliance on Union
Pacific R. Co. is inapposite for a similar reason: unlike the instant case and Kurns, it was directed toward
train configuration, which was not the subject of the LIA or federal regulation.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10

“toxic worksite condition” would still not cure the Stephens’ complaint because they
allege the only cause of Stephens’s mesothelioma is asbestos and the only source of that
asbestos is Union Pacific’s locomotives. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 26, 36, 40. Providing too much in
the complaint can be fatal to a plaintiff. Dismissal may be appropriate if the plaintiff has
included sufficient allegations disclosing an absolute defense or bar to recovery. See
Weisbuch, 119 F.3d at 783, n. 1 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that “[i]f the pleadings establish
facts compelling a decision one way, that is as good as if depositions and other . . .
evidence on summary judgment establishes the identical facts”). The Stephens’
Complaint disclosed a bar to recovery: their claim was directed at locomotive equipment
and pre-empted by the LIA. The Court is unable to create a cause of action under the
LIA, no matter how desirable it would be to allow the Stephens to recover for this tragic,
catastrophic injury. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286 (stating that without
statutory intent to create a cause of action, “courts may not create one, no matter how
desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible the statute”).
B.

Waiver

The Stephens argue that even if their claim is pre-empted by the LIA, Union
Pacific has waived that defense because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(c)
requires the responding party to “affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative
defense” in its first responsive pleading and Union Pacific failed to do so. Mem. Opp’n J.
Pleadings at 7, Dkt. 33. Although, Union Pacific contends that the defense is stated in
the Affirmative Defenses included in their Answer, the Court disagrees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11

In determining whether an affirmative defense has been adequately stated, the key
is whether the pleading gives plaintiff fair notice of the defense. Wyshak v. City Nat.
Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609
F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that plaintiffs had sufficient notice of
affirmative defense because they addressed the affirmative defense in their response brief
in opposition to defendant’s motion for leave to amend the answer). Union Pacific’s
Second Affirmative Defense states that: “The allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Answer ¶ 54, Dkt. 7. Moreover, nothing
in the Court record indicates that Union Pacific raised the preemption defense until it
filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Id.; Mot. J. Pleadings, Dkt. 30. Simply
stated, Union Pacific has not given Stephens fair notice of its preemption defense and
has, therefore, failed to comply with Rule 8(c).
While garden-variety defenses are waived if not set forth in the defendant’s first
responsive pleading, subject matter jurisdiction is open to challenge at any time. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (A court must dismiss an action if it determines “at any time” that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction); ( Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506
F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377
(9th Cir. 1992); Lesson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 976, fn.
12 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Subject matter jurisdiction can never be forfeited or waived”).
Subject matter jurisdiction “refers to a tribunal’s power to hear a case, a matter that can
never be forfeited or waived.”

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12

However, field preemption does not call into question the Court’s power to
adjudicate the case. Rather, it is a defense that has to be plead as an affirmative defense.
“Generally, the question of federal preemption is relevant only as a defense ....“ 29 A
Fed. Proc., L.Ed. § 69:17 (2006). See also Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470,
476, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912, (1998) (“[F]ederal preemption is ordinarily a
defense ....”), 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.3d §
1271 (2006). A number of courts have held the same. Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 316
F.3d 337 (2d Cir.2003) (ERISA preemption); Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc.,
94 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir.1996) (Fair Debt Collection Act preemption); Wolf v. Reliance
Standard Life Ins. Co., 71 F.3d 444 (1st Cir.1995) (ERISA preemption); Jordan v.
Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc., 975 F.2d 539, 541 (8th Cir.1992) (Commodity
Exchange Act preemption); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Barrett, 311 F.Supp.2d 1143, 1147
(D.C.Kan.2004) (“The court holds here that preemption is an ‘avoidance or affirmative
defense’ that must be pleaded pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(c).”); Williams v. Ashland
Eng'g Co., 863 F.Supp. 46 (D.C.Mass.1994); Kenepp v. Am. Edwards Labs., 859 F.Supp.
809 (D.C.Pa.1994), Kennan v. Dow Chem. Co., 717 F.Supp. 799 (D.C.Fla.1989); In re
Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton Int'l Airport, Denver, Colorado, on November 15, 1987,
721 F.Supp. 1185 (D.C.Colo.1988); Integrated Bar Coding Sys., Co. v. Wemert, No. 0460271, 2007 WL 496464, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2007).
“Preemption, moreover, does not normally concern the subject-matter jurisdiction
of a court to hear a claim, which is what is relevant to the resolution of a Rule 12(b)(1)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13

motion. Rather, the doctrine generally concerns the merits of the claim itself—namely,
whether it is viable and which sovereign’s law will govern its resolution. That is why
litigants typically invoke preemption as a defense to state-law claims asserted in state or
federal court, not as a jurisdictional defect.” Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 370 F.3d
602, 608 (6th Cir. 2004).3 Accordingly, the Court will find that Union Pacific has waived
the preemption defense.
II.

Summary Judgment
The Stephens’ Complaint alleges negligence, gross negligence/recklessness, and

loss of consortium.4 However, none of these claims have merit unless the Stephens can
first prove exposure. Even though there is no Idaho case law directly on point, Union
Pacific is correct that most courts require that a plaintiff establish exposure as a
“threshold matter” in asbestos litigation. See e.g. Menne v. Celotex Corp., 861 F.2d 1453,
1461–62 (10th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff must prove exposure to defendant’s products because
without proof of actual exposure, there could be no proximate cause, and the simple fact
that the plaintiff worked at a job site where defendant’s asbestos products were used was
insufficient to establish actual exposure.); Roehling v. Nat'l Gypsum Co. Gold Bond Bldg.

3

The Court might have granted a motion to amend the answer in order to raise the affirmative
defense, but no such motion was filed. Schneider v. Wilcox Farms, Inc., No. C07-1160JLR, 2008 WL
2367183, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 6, 2008).
4

As noted above, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated during oral argument that they were foregoing Count
III of the Complaint. Accordingly, only Counts I, II, and IV are at issue.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14

Products, 786 F.2d 1225, 1228 (4th Cir.1986) (plaintiff must establish that he “was in the
same vicinity as witnesses who can identify the products causing the asbestos dust that all
people in that area . . . inhaled”); Blackston v. Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co., 764 F.2d
1480, 1485 (11th Cir.1985) (plaintiff must “prove exposure to a particular defendant’s
product at some time and place”); Gideon v. Johns–Manville Sales Corp., 761 F.2d 1129,
1144–45 (5th Cir.1985) (plaintiff must provide evidence that asbestos fibers from the
defendant’s products were a substantial causative factor). The Court will apply the same
standard to this case.
Here, Stephens himself provides the only potential evidence of exposure. But his
testimony falls far short of what is needed. He is unable to show that any of the products
or materials his father worked with or around contained asbestos, he is unable to provide
a factual basis for his understanding that his father was a mechanic, and he has simply
speculated that his Father worked on engines. Def. Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶¶ 18
& 26.5 Stephens likewise could not testify that any specific products his Father worked
with contained asbestos. Id. ¶ 23. To Stephens’ credit, he admits that he is trying to recall
information from decades ago, and he does not appear to try to make up memories or
embellish what he does remember. But unfortunately, without more concrete memories,
his claims against Union Pacific fail.

5

The Court references paragraphs of the Defendant’s Statement of Facts for ease of reference.
However, those paragraphs cross-reference specific evidentiary testimony in the record which the Court is
relying upon for its conclusions.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 15

Additionally, even if plaintiffs had provided some evidence of exposure, they fail
to provide evidence that exposure to Union Pacific attributable asbestos caused or
contributed to Stephens’ disease. Idaho uses the substantial factor test. Garcia v Windley,
164 P.3d 819, 823 (Idaho 2007). The “substantial factor” test is applied when there are
multiple possible causes of injury. Id. The substantial factor test allows recovery when a
defendant’s negligence may have concurred with another cause of the injury, “even
though it could not be established that the damage to the plaintiff would not have
occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence.” Doe v. Sisters of Holy Cross, 895 P.2d
1229, 1233 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995) (Internal citation omitted).
Idaho case law does not set forth a standard for applying the substantial factor test
in asbestos cases. “In the absence of controlling forum state law, a federal court sitting in
diversity must use its own best judgment in predicting how the state’s highest court
would decide the case. In so doing, a federal court may be aided by looking to wellreasoned decisions from other jurisdictions.” Takahashi v. Loomis Armored Car Service,
625 F.2d 314, 316 (9th Cir. 1980).
Recently, the Ninth Circuit addressed the substantial factor test applying Arizona
law. See Goulbourn on behalf of Caulbourn v. Crane Co., 728 Fed.Appx. 679, 681 (9th
Cir. 2018). Similar to Idaho, Arizona applies the substantial factor test “when multiple
tortfeasors are alleged to have created an indivisible injury and each defendant’s causal
role is potentially indeterminable. . . .” Id. (citing Salica v. Tucson Heart Hosp.Carondelet, L.L.C., 231 P.3d 946, 950 (Ariz. 2010)). Citing the Restatement (Second) of

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 16

Torts, Arizona explains that an independently sufficient cause is a substantial factor. Id.
(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 432(2) (Am. Law Inst. 1965)). There is no reason
to believe that Idaho would not also rely on the Restatement. And applying that standard
here, the Stephens have not provided sufficient evidence that William Stephens’ disease
was independently caused by take home exposure from his father.
For the reasons explained above, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor
of Union Pacific. In turn, the Court will deny the Stephens’s motion for partial summary
judgment.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 30) is DENIED.

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Dkt. 31) is DEEMED
MOOT.

3.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 39) is GRANTED.

4.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 40) is DENIED.

5.

The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with F.R.C.P. 58.

DATED: October 1, 2018
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 17