Bara v. Trimac Transp. E., Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13-cv-13063 |
| Parties | PATRICK BARA, SHERRY BARA, Plaintiffs, v. TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION EAST, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Gershwin A. Drain
This case was removed by Defendant, Trimac Transportation East, Inc. ("Trimac"), from the Wayne County Circuit Court on July 17, 2013 [#1]. Plaintiff, Patrick Bara, filed a premises liability claim in his amended complaint [#6] on October 16, 2013, alleging that Defendant breached the following Michigan common law duties as a business invitor: (1) the duty to warn Plaintiff of any known dangers on Defendant's premises; (2) the duty to ensure that Defendant's premises remain safe for business invitees; and (3) the duty to inspect Defendant's premises and make any necessary repairs or warn Plaintiff of any discovered hazards. Patrick Bara's wife, Plaintiff, Sherry Bara, joined the amended complaint bringing a claim for loss of love, support, companionship and consortium as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's alleged breach.
Presently before the court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [#18] filed on July 11, 2014. This matter is fully briefed and a hearing was held on October 1, 2014. For the reasons that follow, the Court will DENY Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
On January 23, 2012 Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of a slip and fall that occurred on premises owned by Defendant. Defendant is a foreign corporation with its principle place of business located in Houston, Texas. The Defendant provides tanker washing and maintenance services in the bulk trucking industry. The alleged incident took place at Defendant's facility located on Beech Daly Road in Taylor, Michigan.
At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was working as a hazardous material tanker driver for Distribution Technologies, Inc. ("Distribution Technologies"). Distribution Technologies is a bulk tank carrier that picks up and delivers liquid chemicals via tractor-tanker to and from various industries. Distribution Technologies rented space in Defendant's Taylor, Michigan location in order to have the chemicals from Distribution Technologies' tankers and hoses cleaned between each delivery and pick-up. As a part of the agreement between Defendant and Distribution Technologies, Defendant was responsible for washing the tankers and hoses of Distribution Technologies.
Defendant washed the tankers and hoses in Defendant's tank washroom. The front or east side of Defendant's Taylor, Michigan facility, including the tank washroom, faces eastward, looking onto Beech Daly Road. On the front or east side of the building are two bay doors where Defendant's employees pull tankers into the tank washroom. Also located on the east or front side of the building is a smaller "dock door," which is used by trucks for unloading or loading. The dock door's entrance is located approximately 5 feet off the ground. A "man door" for pedestrians is located on the northeast corner of the building. On the back or west side of Defendant's washroom are two bay doors where the tankers can exit after being cleaned. A "man door" is also present on the back or west side of the washroom.
In order to timely make his required delivery on behalf of Distribution Technologies for the day, Plaintiff asserts that he arrived at Defendant's Taylor, Michigan facility at 7:00 a.m. on the morning of Monday January 23, 2012. On that morning, the front and back bay doors to Defendant's tank washroom were kept locked until Defendant began operations at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff asserts that the "man door" on the northeast side of the building was also locked. Further, Plaintiff asserts that the smaller dock door on the front of the building was also kept locked, and impossible for a pedestrian to use because it is so high off the ground.
In order to perform his job as a hazardous tank car driver, Plaintiff needed clean twenty-foot long hoses with metal fittings in order to empty the chemicals from his tanker during his deliveries. Generally, employees of Defendant placed these hoses on the tractor or the trailer-tanker after they were cleaned, or left the hoses in the tank washroom. Plaintiff asserts that there were no clean hoses on the back of his tractor or tanker when he arrived on the morning of January 23, 2012. Further, because it was 7:00 a.m., and no employees of Defendant were present, Plaintiff claims he was forced to enter Defendant's tank washroom himself in order to get the clean hoses to complete his deliveries.
Plaintiff asserts he entered the tank washroom through the pedestrian "man door" at the back of the building as he normally would. Upon entry, Plaintiff states that he encountered an unusually flooded washroom floor, with the water reaching the top of his ankles. The water was deep enough that plaintiff could not see potential hazards. Plaintiff asserts he shouted for assistance, but no one responded. After seeing the clean hoses he needed hanging on a rack across the tank wash room, and noting that the water was potentially dangerous, Plaintiff decided to walk carefully to the other side of the room to retrieve the hoses. Plaintiff ultimately made it across the room, obtained two clean hoses, and attempted to return across the room to exit.
Plaintiff had to return across the room because the door from which he entered was the only unlocked door at that time in the morning. While carrying the hoses, Plaintiff noted that the hoses were quite heavy. While returning across the room with the heavy hoses, Plaintiff asserts that he saw a chemical area on the floor adjacent to the flooded area. Due to the weight of the hoses, Plaintiff began dragging the hoses through the flooded tank washroom. While walking towards the only unlocked door with the hoses in tow, Plaintiff asserts he slipped on the chemicals after one of the two twenty-foot long hoses he was carrying was caught on something under the water. According to Plaintiff, the slip and fall occurred between 7:15 and 7:30 a.m.
Following the fall, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Plaintiff informed his immediate supervisor, Mr. Mark Daugherty, of the events when Daugherty arrived at work. After learning of Plaintiff's fall, Mr. Daugherty immediately went in to the tank washroom and noted that the whole room was flooded by what he described as a foot of water. After being notified of the events, Distribution Technologies' branch manager in Taylor, Mr. Timothy Kuschel, came to the scene. Upon arrival, and without entering the tank wash room, Mr. Kuschel noted from outside that the tank wash room was so flooded that water was coming out of the bay doors on the outside of the building.
Mr. Kuschel conducted an investigation on behalf of Distribution Technologies and learned from a supervisor of Defendant that a "hose-cleaning" machine had been left on in the tank washroom over the weekend. Mr. Kuschel noted these statements in his accident report, but did not note the name of the supervisor of Defendant. No photographs were taken of the flooded tank washroom floor on the day of the accident. Plaintiff asserts that his injuries were severe enough to necessitate several shoulder operations, and that the injuries have permanently disabled him from his employment with Distribution Technologies.
Defendant removed this case to this Court on July 17, 2013 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, according to the Erie doctrine, Michigan law will govern the substantive issues raised herein while federal law will govern the procedural matters. See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S. Ct. 817, 822, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938) (); Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 417, 116 S. Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996) (); Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S. Ct. 1020, 1021, 85 L. Ed. 1477 (1941) (); see also Performance Contracting Inc. v. DynaSteel Corp., 750 F.3d 608, 611 (6th Cir. 2014).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) empowers the court to render summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Redding v. St. Eward, 241 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has affirmed the Court's use of summary judgment as an integral part of the fair and efficient administration of justice. The procedure is not a disfavored procedural shortcut. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986); see also Cox v. Kentucky Dept. of Transp., 53 F.3d 146, 149 (6th Cir. 1995).
The standard for determining whether summary judgment is appropriate is " 'whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.' " Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Northfield Ins. Co., 323 F.3d 386, 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)). The evidence, and all reasonable inferences, must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Redding, 241 F.3d at 532 (6th Cir. 2001). "[T]he mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial