Glenn v. Union Pacific R. Co., S-07-0016.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
• Citation: 2008 WY 16,176 P.3d 640
• Docket Number: No. S-07-0016.,S-07-0016.
• Parties: Steve B. GLENN, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Appellee (Defendant).
• Decision Date: 08 February 2008

176 P.3d 640 2008 WY 16 Steve B. GLENN, Appellant (Plaintiff),
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Appellee (Defendant). No. S-07-0016. Supreme Court of Wyoming. February 8, 2008.

[176 P.3d 641]

Representing Appellant: Frederick J. Harrison, Frederick J. Harrison, P.C., Rawlins, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Mark C. Hansen, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Denver, Colorado; George E. Lemich, Lemich Law Center, Rock Springs, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Hansen.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

BURKE, Justice.

[¶ 1] Mr. Glenn was injured while closing the "dump doors" of a rail car in a Union Pacific Railroad Company coal train. He filed suit, claiming that his injury was the result of the railroad's negligence. The district court granted summary judgment in Union Pacific's favor, and Mr. Glenn appealed. We reverse the district court's decision.

ISSUE

[¶ 2] The single dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in granting Union Pacific's summary judgment motion.

FACTS

[¶ 3] Mr. Glenn, was employed at the Black Butte coal mine in Sweetwater County. His regular job was working with explosives, but on the night of June 30, 2000, he was asked to work at the coal plant, where a Union Pacific coal train was waiting to be loaded. The train consisted of 102 rail cars, of a type that unload through dump doors in the floors of the cars. When the train arrived at Black Butte, the dump doors on approximately 40 of the cars either were open, or were closed but not securely locked.¹ It seems obvious that coal cannot be loaded into a rail car with open doors. Less obviously, if coal is loaded into a rail car with closed bdt unlocked doors, the doors might fall open immediately, or later during travel, creating a risk of derailment. It is not uncommon for mine employees to close and lock rail car doors before loading a coal train.²

176 P.3d 642

[¶ 4] Mr. Glenn had never before closed rail car doors. A co-worker from Black Butte showed him what to do. Using a pry bar, the two proceeded to close the open doors. To lock the closed but unlocked doors, they first opened the doors, then swung them closed again to engage the locking mechanism. Upon opening the closed but unlocked dump doors, they discovered that some of the rail cars contained coking coal (coal processed into small, hard, rounded pellets somewhat like charcoal briquettes) that was left over from the train's previous cargo. According to Mr. Glenn, when they opened the unlocked doors of one particular car, a substantial amount of coking coal spilled out and trapped his right foot in place so that, as he fell backward, his right leg was broken.

[¶ 5] Mr. Glenn filed suit against Union Pacific, claiming that the railroad's negligence caused his injury. Union Pacific moved for summary judgment and the district court granted that motion. Mr. Glenn appeals the district court's decision.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

[¶ 6] The district court properly granted summary judgment if' there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. W.R.C.P. 56(c). We employ a familiar standard when reviewing a district court's grant of summary judgment:

The propriety of a summary judgment is evaluated

by employing the same standards and by examining the same material as the district court. We examine de novo the record, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, affording to that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from' the record. If upon review of the record, doubt exists about the presence of issues of material fact, that doubt must be resolved against the party seeking summary judgment. We accord no deference to the district court's decisions on issues of law.

[Linton v. E.C. Cates Agency, Inc.], [2005 WY 63,] ¶ 7, 113 P.3d [26,] 28 [(Wyo. 2005)] (citations omitted). "Summary judgment is not favored in a negligence action and is, therefore, subject to more exacting scrutiny. We have, however, affirmed summary judgment in negligence cases where the record failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." Jones v. Schabron, 2005 WY 65, ¶ 9, 113 P.3d 34, 37 (Wyo.2005) (citations omitted).

Jacobson v. Cobbs, 2007 WY 99, ¶ 7, 160 P.3d 654, 656-57 (Wyo.2007).

[¶ 7] In Natrona County v. Blake, 2003 WY 170, ¶ 6, 81 P.3d 948, 951 (Wyo.2003), we listed the following elements of a negligence claim:

(1) The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to conform to a specified standard of care, (2) the defendant breached the duty of care, (3) the defendant's breach of the duty of care proximately caused injury to the plaintiff, and (4) the injury sustained by the plaintiff is compensable by money damages.

Mr. Glenn correctly recited these elements in his district court pleadings, and our task here is to determine whether the district court was correct in ruling that there were no genuine issues of material fact with regard to these elements.

Duty Owed

[¶ 8] Wyoming law has long recognized that a railroad has a duty "to exercise ordinary and reasonable care and prudence in the operation of its railway, and to take those usual, ordinary, precautionary measures which a prudent, reasonable person would take," Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Gilland, 4 Wyo. 395, 402, 34 P. 953, 955 (1893). When this duty is violated and injury is caused, a railroad may be held liable. For

176 P.3d 643

example, when the end door of a rail car fell and hurt an employee as he was unloading cargo, and there was evidence that the fastening hooks had been worn and loose, we upheld the jury's verdict that the railroad was negligent. Chicago & N.W. R.R. v. Ott, 83 Wyo. 200, 237 P. 238 (1925). In Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. Murray, 40 Wyo. 324, 338, 277 P. 703, 707 (1929), we explained that the railroad's duty "seems not unlike the duty of the owner of premises to an invitee. The owner must use care to keep the premises reasonably safe for the protection of the invitee."³

[¶ 9] Union Pacific acknowledges that it has a duty to perform a reasonable inspection of its rail cars, and either remedy or warn its customers about dangerous conditions. This is supported by numerous cases from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Rouillier v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 886 F.2d 105, 108 (5th Cir.1989); Hedgcorth, v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 592 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Mo.App.1979); Stickle v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 122 Utah 477, 480, 251 P.2d 867, 868-69 (1952); and...