Bradley v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 May 2021
• Docket Number: 19 C 903
• Parties: STEPHEN B. BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

STEPHEN B. BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

19 C 903

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

May 7, 2021

Judge Gary Feinerman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Stephen Bradley sues the United States for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., based on an injury he suffered while performing HVAC work in the employ of Complete Temperature Systems, Inc. ("CTS") at a United States Postal Service ("USPS") facility. Doc. 1. The United States moves for summary judgment. Doc. 37. The motion is denied.

Background

A. Local Rule 56.1 Issues

Consistent with the Local Rules, the United States filed a Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed facts along with its summary judgment motion. Doc. 39. (Although amendments to Local Rule 56.1 became effective on February 18, 2021, the court cites the earlier version because most of the briefing on the present motion preceded the changes.) The statement's factual assertions are supported by the evidentiary material cited by the United States. See N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(a) (2020) ("The statement referred to in (3) shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph."). Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) required Bradley to file "a concise response to the [United States's] statement [containing] ... a response to each numbered paragraph in the [United States's] statement." N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B) (2020). He did not do so.

Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) provides that "[a]ll material facts set forth in the [Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)] statement ... will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the [Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B)] statement of the opposing party." N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3) (2020). Because Bradley did not file a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) response, the court deems admitted the Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement's factual assertions "to the extent the[y] ... [a]re supported by admissible and docketed evidence." Kreg Therapeutics, Inc. v. VitalGo, Inc., 919 F.3d 405, 411 (7th Cir. 2019) ("According to well-established Seventh Circuit law, [the non-movant's] noncompliance [with Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B)] meant that the district court could exercise its discretion to accept [the movant's] statements of fact as undisputed.") (quotation marks omitted); see also Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 2015) ("When a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.") (quoting Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009)).

Bradley did file a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of additional facts. Doc. 43-2. But Bradley's submission of a compliant Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement does not excuse his failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B). It follows that any of Bradley's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) factual assertions that directly contradict the United States's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) factual assertions are disregarded. See Rodriguez v. City of Berwyn, 2018 WL 5994984, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2018) ("Because the only proper vehicle for disputing factual assertions in a Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement is a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) response, the court will hold Plaintiffs to their admissions and disregard their Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) assertions to the extentthose assertions conflict with their admissions."); see also Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming the district court's "refus[al] to consider [the] [Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B)] response" where the non-movant "did not separate his proposed facts from his responses to [the movant's] proposed material facts").

That said, the court is mindful that "a nonmovant's failure to respond to a summary judgment motion, or failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1, does not ... automatically result in judgment for the movant. [The movant] must still demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the court recites the facts as favorably to Bradley as the record and Local Rule 56.1 permit, and then decides whether, on those facts, summary judgment is warranted. See Johnson v. Advoc. Health & Hosps. Corp., 892 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir. 2018). At this juncture, the court must assume the truth of those facts, but does not vouch for them. See Gates v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 916 F.3d 631, 633 (7th Cir. 2019).

B. Material Facts

On October 6, 2015, the USPS retained CTS to repair several air handlers at its Chicago International Military Service Center. Doc. 39 at ¶¶ 4, 16. At the time, Bradley was employed by CTS as an HVAC service technician. Id. at ¶ 3.

CTS sent Bradley to perform the work the next day. Id. at ¶ 17. Upon arriving at the Service Center, Bradley met with a USPS employee whom Bradley described at his deposition as "an older guy." Doc. 40-1 at 20 (71:22). The employee's identity is not known with certainty, but the United States asserts it was likely Eugene Steinberg, who has since died. Doc. 39 at ¶ 17 & n.1. Bradley and Steinberg spoke briefly. Doc. 40-1 at 20 (72:3-5). Bradley asked Steinberg, "where do I bring my ladders in?" Id. at 23 (84:2-3). Steinberg replied that Bradley wasrequired "to use the Post Office's ladders," which were "already in the rooms" where he would be working. Id. at 23 (84:3-4).

Steinberg then introduced Bradley to Randolph Krieger, the USPS employee responsible for the Service Center's HVAC system. Doc. 39 at ¶ 17. Krieger asked Bradley to inspect an air handler in the "mezzanine" level. Id. at ¶¶ 19-20. There was no stairway or elevator to the mezzanine, but there was a fixed vertical ladder. Id. at ¶ 21; Doc. 41-1 at 49. Another way to reach the mezzanine was with a mechanical lift, which could be moved into place temporarily as the need arose. Doc. 39 at ¶¶ 21, 54; Doc. 46 at ¶¶ 6-7.

The air handler in the mezzanine looked like a large metal box, with an opening used for maintenance about eight feet above the mezzanine floor. Doc. 39 at ¶ 22; Doc. 41-1 at 50-51. Krieger asked Bradley to diagnose why the unit's blower was not working, but did not provide further instructions. Doc. 39 at ¶ 23. Krieger then left Bradley alone to perform his work. Id. at ¶ 24. Bradley testified at his deposition, and for purposes of this motion the court must accept as true, that an A-frame ladder was already leaning against the air handler when he and Krieger reached the mezzanine. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 32; Doc. 46 at ¶ 10.

At this point, it is important to distinguish A-frame ladders from extension ladders. An A-frame ladder has two front rails and two rear rails, which can be spread apart and locked in place to form an "A" shape. Doc. 39 at ¶ 5. Once opened and locked, an A-frame ladder is self-supporting. Ibid. An extension ladder, by contrast, has two parallel sections that slide past each other to adjust the ladder's length. Id. at ¶ 6. Extension ladders are not self-supporting and must lean against a stable structure. Ibid. In his many years of HVAC experience, Bradley received extensive training on the proper use of the two types of ladder. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, 10-14. Most significant here, Bradley knew that an A-frame ladder should never be used as a substitute for anextension ladder, leaned up against a structure in the closed position. Id. at ¶ 13. Bradley himself points to Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidance cautioning that a person should not "use a self-supporting ladder ... as a single ladder or in a partially closed position." Doc. 46 at ¶ 20; Doc. 43-4 at 26.

Nevertheless, Bradley decided to use the A-frame ladder in the mezzanine as he found it: in the closed position leaned against the air handler. Doc. 39 at ¶ 40; Doc. 46 at ¶¶ 15-16. The parties dispute why Bradley decided to do so despite his knowing that it was unsafe. Doc. 43-2 at ¶¶ 16-24. The USPS asserts that it was a voluntary choice, citing Bradley's testimony that he "took that risk assessment" and "[t]here's no other way to set a ladder up in [t]here, any ladder." Doc. 39 at ¶ 40; Doc. 40-1 at 26 (97:17-22). As noted, however, Bradley also testified that Steinberg directed him not to use another ladder. Doc. 46 at ¶ 12; Doc. 40-1 at 23 (84:1-4). That directive aligned with Bradley's previous experience that the USPS preferred that its contractors use USPS ladders. Doc. 46 at ¶ 13. Bradley testified that he had "do[ne] a lot of work with the Post Office," and that this ladder policy was "pretty much their rules through all of their facilities." Doc. 40-1 at 24 (86:13-18). In addition, Bradley thought that CTS just wanted him to "get the job done." Doc. 46 at ¶ 15; Doc. 40-1 at 26 (97:20). At this stage, the court must accept as true Bradley's testimony that Steinberg directed him to use the A-frame ladder.

Bradley climbed up and down the ladder twice without incident. Doc. 39 at ¶¶ 41-43. He then ascended for a third time and entered fully into the air handler's opening. Id. at ¶ 44. As he attempted to get back on the ladder to descend, it slid out from under him, and he fell to the mezzanine floor from about eight to ten feet up. Id. at ¶¶ 45-46.

Bradley called CTS, which in turn contacted the USPS and paramedics. Id. at ¶ 50. Bradley then used his phone to send CTS a photograph of the ladder, which he reset in the open"A" position. Id. at ¶ 53; Doc. 41-1 at 81. When Krieger learned of the accident, he returned to the mezzanine, where he found Bradley on his feet and the A-frame ladder upright in the open "A" position. Doc. 39 at ¶¶ 51-52. Bradley testified that he reset the ladder properly after his fall because he was...