Union Pacific Railroad Co v. Taylor Truck Line Inc et al

Filing 346

MEMORANDUM RULING re 184 Alternative MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Prewett Enterprises Inc, 197 Alternative MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Taylor Logistics Inc, Daniel Shackleford, Taylor Truck Line Inc, College City Leasing L L C, and 205 Alternative MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Union Pacific Railroad Co. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 8/3/2017. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0074

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

TAYLOR TRUCK LINE, INC., ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

--(consolidated with)-R & L BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2460

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

RULING
Pending before the Court are motions for partial summary judgment on the claims for land
damages by R & L Builders Supply, Inc. (“Builders Supply”) and R & L Properties of Oak Grove,
LLC (“Properties”). Prewett Enterprises, Inc. (“Prewett”) moves the Court to find that Builders
Supply has no claim for damages to land owned by Properties and that any recovery by Properties
must be based on the difference between the market value of the property before and after the
accident. [Doc. No. 184]. College City Leasing, LLC (“College City”), Daniel Shackleford
(“Shackleford”), Taylor Logistics, Inc. (“Taylor Logistics), Taylor Truck Line, LLC (“Taylor
Truck”), Taylor Consolidated, Inc. (“Taylor Consolidated”) (collectively “the Taylor Entities”)1 also
1

Taylor Consolidated is not listed as a movant in the motion for partial summary
judgment [Doc. No. 197] filed by the other Taylor entities. This appears to be a clerical error.
To the extent that claims of damages to the land are asserted against Taylor Consolidated, those
claims are resolved the same as they are to the other Taylor Entities. The Court finds no
prejudice to the non-movants by consideration of this motion as to Taylor Consolidated as well

move for summary judgment, adopting and incorporating Prewett’s arguments. [Doc. No. 197].
Likewise, Union Pacific Railroad Co. (“Union Pacific”) moves for partial summary judgment, also
adopting and incorporating Prewett’s arguments. [Doc. No. 205]. Properties and Builders Supply
oppose the motions. [Doc. Nos. 228, 239, 232 & 284]. The moving parties have filed replies in
support of the motions. [Doc. Nos. 242, 243, 246 & 247].
Since these motions were originally briefed, the Court has issued rulings and judgments on
other motions for partial summary with regard to Properties’ and Builders Supply’s claims of
trespass, environmental damage, negligence, and loss of business expansion/opportunities. See
[Doc. Nos. 292, 293, 296, 297, 298, 304, 305, 306, 307, 320 & 321].2 The Court also issued a ruling
and judgment regarding Builders Supply’s claims. [Doc. Nos. 287 & 288]. In summary of these
decisions, the Court has determined that there was no lease between Builders Supply and Properties
and that Builders Supply cannot proceed to trial on any claims except for the loss of cross ties it had
stored on Properties’ land. The Court has found that Properties can proceed to trial with its claim
that it suffered damage to its land, but found that it has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
for trial on its claims of environmental contamination, loss of business expansion/opportunities,
trespass, and negligence. For the reasons set forth in this Ruling and the Court’s previous rulings,
the motions for partial summary judgment on Properties’ and Builders Supply’s claimed land
damages are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

as to the other Taylor Entities.
2

The Court has issued rulings on other issues and claims as well, but the identified rulings
and judgments are pertinent to the arguments in support of and in opposition to the instant
motions.
2

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 5, 2014, a collision occurred in Mer Rouge, Louisiana, when a Union Pacific

train collided with a 2013 Kenworth tractor with trailer and dolly (hereinafter “tractor-trailer”) which
had become lodged on the highway/railway grade crossing when the driver, Daniel Shackleford,
attempted to cross.3 The tractor-trailer was owned by College City and leased to Taylor Truck.
As a result of the collision, approximately 17 railroad cars and 2 locomotives left the railroad
tracks, cargo spilled, and a tank car leaked Argon onto surrounding property. Properties owns the
land located along Church Street in Mer Rouge4 (“the Church Street Land”) where at least some of
the cars and other debris came to rest after the collision. Builders Supply operates a building supply
and equipment facility on Andrews Lane in Mer Rouge across the street from the Church Street
Land. At the time of the collision, Builders Supply sold hardware, lumber, and other items necessary
to build a home. Builders Supply consists of the hardware store and three additional buildings which
provide storage for the inventory of doors, sheet rock, treated lumber, and 2 x 4s. Sales at Builders
Supply’s Andrews Lane location were not affected by the derailment because its sales were
significantly higher in April through June 2016 than they were during the same months in 2014 and
2015.

3

The facts surrounding the collision are set forth more fully in the Court’s previous
rulings in this matter.
4

The legal description of the land is as follows:

Lots 1 through 12, Block 23 inclusive of the T.H.B. Andrews Addition to Mer
Rouge, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Court
of Morehouse Parish, Louisiana, LESS AND EXCEPT the North 75 feet of Lots
10, 11, and 12, the North 75 feet of the East 5 feet of Lot 9, and the North 30 feet
of Lots 7, 8 and 9 of said Block 23.
3

Approximately one year before the accident, Properties purchased the Church Street Land
for the purpose of expanding Builders Supply’s business operations. Builders Supply intended to
expand the business by constructing a new store location, adding more storage, and offering new
items for sale, including septic tanks, culverts, and steps. However, Builders Supply did not have
a valid lease of the Church Street Land, no financing had been obtained for the expansion, and no
construction had begun.
On January 14, 2015, Union Pacific brought the instant suit against Shackleford, and the
entities that otherwise owned, leased, or had another interest in the tractor-trailer, Taylor Truck,
Taylor Logistics, Inc., and College City. On November 4, 2015, a lawsuit filed by Properties and
Builders Supply was consolidated with this lawsuit.
On February 27, 2017, the Court issued a Ruling and Judgment [Doc. Nos. 287 & 288],
finding that there was no valid lease of the Church Street Land from Properties to Builders Supply
and dismissing any claims asserted by Builders Supply for damage to the Church Street Land. The
Court allowed Builders Supply to proceed with any claims for damages to cross ties it had stored on
the Church Street Land.
On May 9, 2017, the Court issued a Ruling and Judgment [Doc. Nos. 304 & 305] dismissing
all environmental contamination claims asserted by Properties and Builders Supply.
The same day, May 9, 2017, the Court issued a Ruling and Judgment [Doc. Nos. 306 & 307]
dismissing any claims by Properties and Builders Supply for loss of lease payments relating to the
Builders Supply expansion.
On May 17, 2017, the Court issued a Ruling and Judgment [Doc. Nos. 320 & 321] granting
in part and denying in part motions for partial summary judgment with regard to Properties’ and
4

Builders Supply’s claims for past and future loss of revenues from the anticipated expansion. To the
extent that Properties seeks to recover damages for the loss of sales of topsoil, the Court denied the
motions. The Court otherwise granted the motions, and Properties’ and Builders Supply’s claims for
past and future loss of revenues from the anticipated expansion were dismissed.
On July 13, 2017, the Court issued a Ruling and Judgment [Doc. No. 343 & 344] granting
Union Pacific’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Preemption of Liability for
Additional Signs or Signalization at the Crossing. Opposing parties are precluded from presenting
testimony or arguing to the jury in support of a claim that Union Pacific was negligent or at fault for
failing to provide additional signs or signals at the Louisiana Highway 2/Davenport Avenue crossing.
Properties and/or Builders Supply filed a number of motions for reconsideration, all of which
the Court has denied. See [Doc. Nos. 325, 341, 342 & 345].
The instant motions are fully briefed, and the Court is prepared to rule.
II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A.

Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), “[a] party may move for summary judgment,
identifying each claim or defense--or the part of each claim or defense--on which summary judgment
is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The
moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion by identifying
portions of the record which highlight the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Topalian v.
Ehrmann, 954 F.2d 1125, 1132 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (“A party asserting
that a fact cannot be . . . disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of
5

materials in the record . . . ). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would
affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that
a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
B.

Claims by Builders Supply

For the reasons set forth in detail in the Court’s previous rulings, the Court finds that Builders
Supply has no interest in the Church Street Land, and, therefore, it cannot recover any damages to
the land itself.5 The pending motions for partial summary judgment are GRANTED, and Builders
Supply’s claims for damages to the land are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
C.

Claims by Properties

The Court has found that Properties has an interest in the Church Street Land and may,
therefore, pursue claims for damages. The movants argue, however, that any such damage must be
limited to a difference in the pre- and post-market value of the Church Street Land, rather than the
cost of restoration. Properties opposes this motion, responding that restoration would allow the
property to be used in its anticipated manner and that it is reasonable to believe that damages would
be used to make the necessary repairs.
“One injured through the fault of another is entitled to full indemnification for damages
caused thereby.” Hornsby v. Bayou Jack Logging, 2004-1297 (La. 5/6/05), 902 So. 2d 361, 365
(citing Coleman v. Victor, 326 So.2d 344 (La. 1976)). “‘[W]hen property is damaged through the
legal fault of another, the primary objective is to restore the property as nearly as possible to the state
5

The Court’s previous ruling stands that allows Builders Supply to proceed to trial with
its claim that it suffered damages based on the loss of sales of cross ties that it had stored on the
Church Street Land.
6

it was in immediately preceding the damage.’” Id. (citing Coleman, 326 So.2d at 346). Thus, as a
“general rule,” a person sustaining property damage is entitled to recover restoration costs “or, at his
election, the difference between the value of the property before and after the harm.” Roman
Catholic Church of Archdiocese of N.O. v. La. Gas Serv. Co., No. 92-C-0071 (La. 5/24/93), 618
So.2d 874, 879-80.
However, “at times restoration is not possible and is sometimes not cost effective.” Hornsby,
902 So.2d at 367. “If . . . the cost of restoring the property is disproportionate to the value of the
property or economically wasteful, unless there is a reason personal to the owner for restoring the
original condition or there is reason to believe that the plaintiff will, in fact, make the repairs,
damages are measured by the difference between the value of the property before and after the
harm.” Roman Catholic Church, 618 So.2d at 876; see also State v. La. Land & Exploration Co.,
2012-0884 (La. 1/30/13), 110 So.3d 1038, 1048 (“[U]nder the precepts of Roman Catholic Church,
restoration damages may only be recovered when there are ‘reasons personal to the owner’ or there
is reason to believe the landowner will, in fact, use the damages to restore the property.”).
Since these motions were originally briefed, the Court has ruled on a number of other
motions in this case which affect Properties’ claimed damages, including the dismissal of Properties’
claim for damages for environmental contamination. After reviewing the record and its previous
rulings, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial whether the costs that
can be proven at trial for restoration of the property are disproportionate to its value or economically
wasteful. Given that finding, the Court does not reach the Roman Catholic test. If, at the close of
Properties’ evidence movants contend that the Roman Catholic test has been implicated, they may

7

re-urge their motions at that time.6
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motions for partial summary judgment on Properties’ and

Builders Supply’s land damages filed by Prewett, the Taylor Entities, Union Pacific [Doc. Nos. 184,
197 & 205] are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Builders
Supply seeks to recover for damages to the Church Street Land,7 the motions are GRANTED, and
the claims by Builders Supply are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motions are otherwise
DENIED, subject to the right of the movants to re-urge their motions at the close of Properties’
evidence at trial.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 3rd day of August, 2017.

6

The Court does not limit the movants’ ability in any way to challenge the validity of the
restoration costs sought by Properties. For example, in their memorandum, Properties contends
that it must remove a minimum of two feet of soil to ensure a stable foundation for building.
[Doc. No. 232, p. 26]. However, it admits that the removal of one foot of soil was necessary
prior to the accident. Therefore, Properties clearly could not recover the entire cost of the soil
removal.
7

The Court has previously determined that Builders Supply can recover damages, if
proven at trial, for the loss of cross ties it stored on the Church Street Land.
8