Ronald Ward v. Soo Line Railroad Company et al
Filing
40
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 36 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendants Canadian Pacific Railway, Soo Line Railroad Company; GRANTING 39 MOTION for Status Conference by Plaintiff Ronald Ward. Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complai nt are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Count III of the Second Amended Complaint REMAINS PENDING. IN-PERSON Status Conference set for 10/20/2015 at 01:00 PM in US District Court - Hammond before Judge Rudy Lozano. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/22/15. (cer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
RONALD WARD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOO LINE RAILROAD
COMPANY d/b/a CANADIAN
PACIFIC, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-00001
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the: (1) Defendant’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Defendant, Soo Line
Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific (“CP Rail”), on July 17,
2015 (DE #36); and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Conference,
filed by Plaintiff, Ronald Ward, on September 14, 2015 (DE #39).
The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (DE #36), which is
uncontested, is GRANTED and Counts I and II of the second amended
complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court notes that Count
III of the second amended complaint, for negligence, remains
pending.
The Plaintiff’s Motion for a Status Conference (DE #39)
is GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED that the parties appear before
this Court, 5400 Federal Plaza, Hammond, Indiana, on October 20,
2015, at 1:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION
Defendant filed its motion and memorandum of law in support of
the motion for judgment on the pleadings with regards to Count I
and Count II of the second amended complaint (DE ##36, 37) on July
17, 2015.
On September 14, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald Ward, filed a
submission stating “Plaintiff is not contesting Soo Line Railroad’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as to Count I and Count II.”
(DE #39, p. 1.)
The pleadings filed by the parties in this case establish that
the events and injuries giving rise to Plaintiff’s cause of action
occurred in Canada. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”),
45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., does not have extraterritorial effect, and
case law bars the recovery under FELA by American citizens for
injuries sustained outside the United States. See, e.g., Priestman
v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 782 F.Supp. 681, 683 (D. Me. 1992); New
York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31 (1925); Boak v.
Consol. Rail Corp., 850 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1988).
As such,
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count I.
Regarding Count II, the Locomotive Inspection Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 20701, “does not create a right to sue but merely establishes a
safety standard, the failure to comply with that standard is
negligence per se under the FELA.”
Coffey v. Northeast Illinois
Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (METRA), 479 F.3d 472, 477
(7th Cir. 2007) (citing Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 188-89 and
2
n.30 (1949)).
As explained in Urie, “an employee injury suit
alleging violation of the Broiler Inspection Act [predecessor to
the
Locomotive
Inspection
Act]
is
Employers’ Liability Act . . . .”
brought
under
the
(Id. at n. 30.)
Federal
Thus, a
plaintiff cannot maintain a stand-alone action under the Locomotive
Inspection Act.
As such, Count II is dismissed as well.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings (DE #36), which is uncontested, is GRANTED and Counts
I and II of the second amended complaint are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
The Court notes that Count III of the second amended
complaint, for negligence, remains pending. The Plaintiff’s Motion
for a Status Conference (DE #39) is GRANTED and it is hereby
ORDERED that the parties appear before this Court, 5400 Federal
Plaza, Hammond, Indiana, on October 20, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.
DATED: September 22, 2015
/S/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?