Hale et al v. Pan Am Railways, Inc. et al

Filing 147

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Pan Am's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 119 ) is DENIED. For the reasons set forth at the settlement approval hearing, the Motions to Approve Third Party Settlement (Docket Nos. 134 & 135 ) are ALLOWED. So ordered. (Vieira, Leonardo)

Case 1:17-cv-10855-NMG Document 147 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 8

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts

Michael Hale and Alla Hale,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Pan Am Railways, Inc. et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
17-10855-NMG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
This case arose from an accident that occurred during the
unloading of a railcar in February, 2015.

Plaintiffs Michael

and Alla Hale (“plaintiffs” or “the Hales”) bring this action
against Pan Am Railways, Inc. (“Pan Am”), Americold Logistics
LLC (“Americold”) and Cryo-Trans, Inc. (“Cryo-Trans”)
(collectively “defendants”) alleging that defendants were
negligent with respect to their involvement with Railcar CRYX
5017 (“Railcar 5017” or “the railcar”) which caused Mr. Hale’s
injuries.

Pending before the Court is the motion of Pan Am for

summary judgment.

For the following reasons that motion will be

denied.
Also pending before the Court are two motions to Approve
Third Party Settlement with plaintiffs by Americold Logistics

-1-

Case 1:17-cv-10855-NMG Document 147 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 8

and the Hales.

For the reasons set forth at the hearing held on

March 13, 2020, those motions will be allowed.

I.

Background

A. Facts
The facts of this case have been previously recited by this
Court. See Docket No. 43.

For the sake of completeness,

however, the Court will recount certain of them here.
Plaintiffs are Connecticut residents.

Mr. Hale was an

employee of C&S at its facility in Hatfield, Massachusetts from
1996 until the time of the accident.

C&S operates regional

distribution centers where it receives food products and ships
them to supermarkets and other retail stores.

Mr. Hale alleges

that on February 3, 2015, he was instructed to unload Railcar
CRYX 5017 which was loaded with pallets containing frozen tater
tots shipped from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Mr.

Hale alleges that Pan Am was aware that Americold was

packing railcars in an unsafe manner and Pan Am had begun
unsealing and spot-checking certain cars prior to delivery to
C&S.

Mr. Hale contends that the railcar arrived and was

rejected by C&S due to weight distribution issues.

He claims

that after a C&S employee determined that Railcar 5017 was
unsafe to unload, C&S notified Pan Am that it would reject the
railcar and refuse to unload it due to safety concerns.

-2-

He

Case 1:17-cv-10855-NMG Document 147 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 8

avers that in violation of applicable company policy, Pan Am
refused to remove or inspect the railcar.
According to Mr. Hale, after some discussions between the
relevant parties, it was apparently determined that C&S would
unload the railcar pursuant to certain suggestions proffered by
Pan Am.

During the process of unloading, several packages of

frozen tater tots, weighing approximately 80 pounds, fell on Mr.
Hale.
Pan Am maintains that it did, in fact, inspect the railcar
in Mechanicsville, PA, before it arrived and found no observable
exterior defects.

Pan Am also disputes the circumstances that

lead to C&S unloading the railcar.
In the complaint, Mr. Hale details the injuries he suffered
as a result of the incident, including injuries to both feet,
requiring surgery, and injuries to his ankles, knees, neck and
back.

Mr. Hale also notes that he suffers from post traumatic

stress disorder, has been unable to return to work and has been
determined to be partially disabled.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed this action in May, 2017, alleging that
defendants were negligent in the operation of the railcar.
Hale brings a claim for loss of consortium against all
defendants.

-3-

Ms.

Case 1:17-cv-10855-NMG Document 147 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 8

In March, 2018, this Court denied Pan Am’s motion to
dismiss but allowed Cryo-Trans’s motion to dismiss.
Subsequently, the Hales filed an amended complaint against CryoTrans which that defendant again moved to dismiss.

The Court

allowed that second motion in July, 2018.
In February, 2020, the Hales reported that they had reached
a settlement with Americold and the parties filed a motion to
approve that settlement pursuant to M.G.L. c. § 152.

In March,

2020, this Court held a hearing, required by that statute to
assure the fairness of the settlement.

After hearing from the

relevant parties, the Court found the settlement to be fair.

II.

Motion for Summary Judgment

A. Legal Standard
The role of summary judgment is “to pierce the pleadings
and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a
genuine need for trial.” Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d
816, 822 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc.,
895 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 1990)).

The burden is on the moving

party to show, through the pleadings, discovery and affidavits,
“that 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).

-4-

Case 1:17-cv-10855-NMG Document 147 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 8

A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

A genuine issue of material

fact exists where the evidence with respect to the material fact
in dispute “is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
If the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts
to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine, triable issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 324 (1986).

The Court must view the entire record in

the light most favorable to the non-moving party and make all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor. O'Connor v.
Steeves, 994 F.2d 905, 907 (1st Cir. 1993).

Summary judgment is

appropriate if, after viewing the record in the non-moving
party's favor, the Court determines that no genuine issue of
material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
B. Analysis
Pan Am asserts that because Car 5017 was sealed and without
visible exterior defects when it was delivered, as a matter of
law it owes no duty to Mr. Hale and is not responsible for his
injuries.

In support, Pan Am, in a cursory filing, points

principally to a 1967 case from the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, Casella v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co, 381 F.2d 473 (4th Cir.
-5-

Case 1:17-cv-10855-NMG Document 147 Filed 08/05/20 Page 6 of 8

1967) which relies on a New York Court of Appeals case decided
in 1914.

In

Casella, the Court applied the law of New York and

held that a railroad is not liable when a consignee is injured
by falling contents immediately upon opening a sealed railcar if
the defect was not observable from the exterior of the car and
the railroad did not have actual knowledge of the danger
presented by the railcar. Id. at 476.
For a number of reasons, that case and other consistent
cases cited by the plaintiff are inapplicable and Pan Am’s
assertion that it did not owe a duty to the plaintiff as a
matter of law is erroneous.

First, this case is governed by the

law of Massachusetts and relevant precedent in the First
Circuit.

Defendant has cited no case law from this Circuit or

Massachusetts and has not pointed to a single case decided in
the past 50 years to support its argument.

Second, the rule

articulated in Casella requires that to be free from liability a
railroad must not have actual knowledge of the danger posed.
Mr. Hale alleges that Pan Am had actual knowledge of (1) the
dangerous condition of Railcar 5017 and (2) Americold’s failure
to pack railcars properly.
As the Casella court noted, it would not have reached the
same conclusion with respect to liability had the railroad been
aware that the packing company’s loading practices were
deficient. Id. at 478 (noting that “[i]f the railroad had been
-6-

Case 1:17-cv-10855-NMG Document 147 Filed 08/05/20 Page 7 of 8

aware that [the packaging company’s] loading practices were
dangerously deficient, we would have a different case”).

As

previously recounted, Hale maintains that (1) Pan Am knew
Americold was improperly packing railcars; (2) Railcar 5017 was
packaged in an unsafe manner; (3) C&S rejected the railcar and
informed Pan Am of its rejection due to unsafe conditions; (4)
Pan Am refused to take back the car and (5) Pan Am instructed
C&S to unload the car using a procedure that was in
contravention of its stated policy.
Pan Am owed Hale a duty of care.

Those facts suggest that

The rule articulated in

Casella and other purportedly consistent caselaw cited by the
plaintiff is inapposite.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the
Hales, there exist genuine issues of material fact and Pan Am
has not met its burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

-7-

Case 1:17-cv-10855-NMG Document 147 Filed 08/05/20 Page 8 of 8

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Pan Am’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket No. 119) is DENIED.

For the reasons set forth

at the settlement approval hearing, the Motions to Approve Third
Party Settlement (Docket Nos. 134 & 135) are ALLOWED.
So ordered.

/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: August 5, 2020

-8-