Petree v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company et al
Filing
63
OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Defendant Norfolk Southern's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claims against Norfolk Southern; on their cross-claims against Defendants Masur and Graham; and on Defendants Masur and Graham's counter cross-claims against Norfolk Southern; denying 39 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on his claims against Defendants Masur and Graham. The Court schedules a final pretrial conference in this matter for 9/17/2009 at 3:00 PM and trial date of 10/13/2009. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 7/23/2009. (km1, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION LARRY A. PETREE, Plaintiff, v. THE CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS, AND TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, et al. Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : NO. 1:07-CV-00682
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 23), Defendants Thomas Graham and Masur Trucking Company's Response in Opposition (doc. 33), Plaintiff Larry Petree's Response in
Opposition (doc. 40), and Defendant Norfolk Southern's Replies in Support (docs. 48, 52). Also before the Court are Plaintiff
Larry Petree's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 39), Defendants Thomas Graham and Masur Trucking Company's Response in Opposition (doc. 50), and Plaintiff Larry Petree's Reply in Support (doc. 40). I. Background This case involves claims under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA") and state law claims for negligence and vicarious liability (doc. 1). The parties agree as to the basic
facts of this case.
On August 24, 2005, Plaintiff Larry Petree
("Petree") was working as a Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("Norfolk Southern") conductor when his crew's locomotive was pulling a single freight car west across Mosteller Road in
Sharonville, Ohio (doc. 23).
Petree was riding on the front of
the locomotive when it was struck by a southbound truck owned by Defendant Masur Trucking Company ("Masur") and driven by Masur employee, Defendant Thomas Graham ("Graham") (Id.). Filings precautions to stop indicate traffic the at the locomotive Mosteller crew Road took
crossing,
including stopping the train at the east edge of the road and sounding the train's whistle and bell signals before proceeding across the tracks (doc. 33). Filings also indicate the train's
headlights were illuminated and the train's ditch lights were blinking at the time of the accident (doc. 40). which are the The conditions,
similarly undisputed, show the weather was clear and occurred in broad daylight (doc. 23). At the
accident
crossing, there are pavement markings, crossbucks, and a painted pavement stop bar; however, no automatic gates (Id.). The record also reveals numerous facts in dispute among the parties. Petree's In Defendant Norfolk Southern's motion, they allege began sounding the whistle signals 500-600
engineer
yards before reaching Mosteller Road and continued to do so until 2
reaching the crossing (doc. 23).
Likewise, Norfolk Southern
argues Petree's testimony reveals all five lanes on Mosteller Road were stopped and traffic was "stacked up" at the crossing (Id.). Norfolk Southern argues only after all motor vehicle
traffic had stopped, did Mr. Fyffe and Petree decide to proceed with the crossing after being stopped at the edge of the railroad for roughly a minute (Id.). In contrast to Co-Defendant Norfolk Southern's
assertions, Defendants Graham and Masur argue Petree and his crew failed to ensure all five lanes of traffic had stopped before crossing Mosteller (doc. 33). In support, Graham and Masur rely
on Fyffe's testimony, which they state proves all traffic did not even begin to stop until after the engine began to cross the road (Id.). Graham and Masur also argue the train failed to sound its
horn continuously through the crossing as required by law (Id.). For this proposition, Graham and Masur rely on a witness stopped "barely fifty feet from the crossing" who only heard "three quick little blows of the horn" (Id.). Similarly, Graham and Masur
allege the engine failed to maintain a proper lookout and that the photographs submitted with the filings are an inaccurate portrayal of the accident scene contrary to Norfolk Southern and Petree's assertion (Id.). Finally, Plaintiff Petree 3 asserts there are facts
in
dispute
among
the
parties
(doc.
40).
Petree
argues
the
train's engineer began blowing the horn and whistle approximately 500-600 yards before the crossing and continued to blow it in sequence until the engine reached the crossing (Id.). Petree
also alleges he and his crew made certain all traffic had stopped before proceeding slowly across the grade crossing and that he, Fyffe, and Bartlett went onto the leading platform of the
locomotive engine to be able to make hand and eye contact with the traffic In following (Id.). response (1) to a these FELA events, claim for Petree brought the
claims:
negligence
against
Defendant Norfolk Southern; (2) a state law claim for negligence against Defendant Graham; and (3) a state law claim for vicarious liability of Defendant Masur as employer of Graham, as well as negligence in hiring or training Graham (doc. 1). Also, Defendant Norfolk Southern filed cross-
claims against Co-Defendants Masur and Graham, arguing Graham's negligence caused the action, and so if there is a judgment against Defendant Norfolk Southern, it should be entitled to indemnification in whole, or in the alternative, in part (doc. 11). Finally, Defendants Masur and Graham filed a counter
cross-claim, arguing Co-Defendant Norfolk Southern is responsible for the accident, and asking for whole or partial indemnification 4
in the event of a Plaintiff's judgment (doc. 13). Subsequent to these claims, Defendant Norfolk Southern filed a motion for summary judgment on: (1) Plaintiff Petree's claims against Defendant Norfolk Southern; (2) Defendant Norfolk Southern's cross-claims against Co-Defendants Masur and Graham; and (3) Defendants Masur and Graham's counter cross-claim against Co-Defendant Norfolk Southern. Plaintiff Petree also filed for
partial summary judgment on his claims against Defendants Masur and Graham such that this matter is now ripe for the Court's consideration. II. Discussion A. Summary Judgment Standard The narrow question that this Court must decide on a motion for summary judgment is whether there exists a "genuine issue as to any material fact and [whether] the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Supreme Court elaborated upon the appropriate standard in deciding a motion for summary judgment as follows: [T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 5
The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to an
essential element of the non-movant's case. Id. at 321; Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 1992); Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989). If the moving party meets this burden, then the non-
moving party "must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Guarino, 980 F.2d at 405. As the Supreme Court stated in Celotex, the non-moving party must "designate" specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Guarino, 980 F.2d at 405. Although the burden might not require the non-moving party
to "designate" facts by citing page numbers, "
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?