WELLS v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
Filing
37
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion for Summary Judgment, such that Plaintiff's claims for negligence and for violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act are viable for presentation to a jury, while Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the FSAA are dismissed. The Court schedules the Final Pretrial Conference for 11/3/2010 at 2:00 PM and sets the three-day jury trial for 12/7/2010 on an on-deck basis. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 9/16/2010. (km1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION COYE L. WELLS, Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION INC., Defendant. : : : : NO. 1:08-CV-00837 : : : OPINION AND ORDER : : : : :
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 24), Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition (doc. 29) and Defendant's Reply (doc. 31). BACKGROUND This case involves Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act ("FELA") 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, based on the Federal Safety Appliance Act ("FSAA"), 49 U.S.C. §§ 20301-06 and the Locomotive Inspection Act ("LIA"), 49 U.S.C. §§ 20701 et seq. (formerly the Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C. § 23) (doc. 1). Both statutes impose a number of safety requirements on railroads, which are actionable under FELA. O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & E.
Ry. Co., 338 U.S. 384, 390-91 (1949), Lilly v. Grand Truck Western R.R. Co., 317 U.S. 481 (1943). Plaintiff claims Defendant failed
to provide him a safe place to work and thus violated FELA after he tripped at the unlit juncture of two locomotive platforms, when the
one which he was walking to was six inches higher than that from which he was coming (Id.). Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on
December 31, 2009, contending that Plaintiff could not show it was negligent, that it complied with the applicable safety regulations because it had continuous safety chains along the platforms, and there was no defect in the gap between the platforms, which Plaintiff had traversed in the daylight hours before his fall (doc. 24). Plaintiff has responded (doc. 29), and Defendant replied (doc. 31) such that this matter is ripe for the Court's consideration. ANALYSIS I. 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). -2-
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?