Haut v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | C070419 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER HAUT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Plaintiff Christopher Haut was injured in his job with defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company when he repeatedly pushed a crane button to try to lift a stuck radiator from a locomotive, and a bolt flew off the crane's lifting device and hit him in the face. He sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which requires the employee to prove the railroad's negligence played a part, no matter how small, in bringing about the injury, and denies recovery where the employee is the sole cause of his injury. (45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq; CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride (2011) ___ U.S. ___ (CSX).) The jury returned a special verdict finding (1) defendant was negligent but (2) its negligence was not a cause of plaintiff's injury.
Plaintiff appeals, arguing no substantial evidence supports a finding that he was the sole cause of his injury. We disagree. Plaintiff forfeits substantial evidence by failing to acknowledge evidence favorable to the judgment. Moreover, plaintiff admittedly knew the safety rule that "if something is stuck, you better stop." The jury was not required to believe plaintiff's testimony that he had no idea the crane was straining when he kept pushing the crane button. The jury could reasonably find negligence on defendant's part yet find plaintiff was the sole cause of his injury. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
At trial and on appeal, plaintiff has presented an avalanche of material claiming defendant was negligent in a multitude of ways, e.g., inadequate training and supervision of the employee who failed to know about and remove hidden radiator bolts; failure to have written diagrams and instructions easily available; failure to remove from service a defective lifting device; and inadequate training on the use of the crane and lifting equipment. Defendant responds on each point. We need not address most of this evidence, because the judgment may be affirmed on the simple ground that plaintiff kept pushing the crane button even though the radiator was stuck.
Defendant hired plaintiff as a "journeyman machinist" in August 2004, three years before the accident. The position required at least four years of documented experience working on engines or heavy equipment. Plaintiff had 24 years' prior experience as a machinist, including 22 years working on military tanks and vehicles for the National Guard. At Union Pacific, plaintiff had one week of classroom training and three months of peer training where he shadowed and learned from senior workers. It was not possible to train each new employee to do every job on every type of locomotive, because defendant has 30 classes of locomotives made by this manufacturer. But the mechanical aspect of locomotives is "pretty basic stuff."
Plaintiff worked in defendant's locomotive maintenance and repair facility. Before the accident, plaintiff had never participated in lifting a radiator out of a locomotive engine and had not worked with the particular lifting device used that day, but he had previously operated cranes and lifting devices and felt confident he knew what he was doing on the day of the accident.
On the day of the accident, June 3, 2007, a supervisor told plaintiff he would be working with Terry Stuart to pull a radiator of a locomotive to repair a leak in the radiator. Stuart told plaintiff the radiator was ready to be pulled out, which plaintiff understood to mean that all bolts had been removed from the radiator. Stuart said he had tried to lift the radiator with a cable sling hooked to a lifting device on a crane, without success, and they had to find the chains for the lifting device. They looked but could not find the chains that belonged with the particular lifting device. They reported to supervisor Robert McKenzie, who indicated they should use other chains.
Plaintiff found a chain but it was not big enough for the "shackles" to go through it. A shackle or "clevis" is a U-shaped device that unscrews to accommodate a chain or cable and then screws back together. A clevis is specifically designed to take the force of lifting, whereas bolts are used for lateral forces.
Plaintiff had the idea to use bolts instead of shackles to attach the chain to the lifting device. He testified he told McKenzie, who said, "Just get it done." It was the end of a shift, so Stuart and McKenzie left. Plaintiff used bolts to secure the chain to the lifting device.
Plaintiff was joined by Shane Franks and Greg Hughes. The latter two got on top of the locomotive. Plaintiff operated the overhead crane, picked up the lifting device, and moved it over the engine, where the others hooked the lifting device to the radiator. Hughes then left to check on the new radiator.
Plaintiff was the crane operator, and Franks on top of the locomotive was the signal person. They double-checked and believed all bolts had been removed. Theywere unaware there were additional bolts hidden behind the shutter assembly that had not been removed.
Franks signaled plaintiff to go up, and plaintiff pushed the crane button to go up. The lifting device inched up but "wouldn't go." Franks said go down, so plaintiff went down. Franks said he needed a pry bar, which plaintiff handed to him. Sometimes sealant around the gaskets will stick. Franks checked from the top, then handed the pry bar to plaintiff, who stepped inside the compartment and checked from underneath. Everything seemed free and clear.
According to Franks -- who testified before plaintiff at trial -- the radiator did not move with the first attempt; they stopped and checked; and the bolt failed on the second attempt. This conflicted with plaintiff's testimony at trial and in his deposition that he pushed the crane button four times before the bolt flew off. Before plaintiff testified, the trial court allowed the defense to use the deposition testimony in cross-examining a witness, over a curious objection by plaintiff's attorney that this was a "new issue" that was "never disclosed in discovery."
Plaintiff testified Franks gave him a second signal to go up. Plaintiff pushed the button in a "short burst" as he was supposed to do. Franks said to go up again. Plaintiff pushed the button a third time. Franks said to go up again. Plaintiff pushed the button a fourth time and got hit in the chin by the flying bolt. He went to the hospital and received three stitches. He returned to work but later complained of head and neck pain, took a leave of absence, then quit to work for the State.
Since plaintiff did not testify he went down after the second and third short bursts of the button, it is not clear whether he lowered the hook each time or whether the strain caused the crane to stall, as other witnesses described crane operations generally. For purposes of this appeal, it does not matter.
Defendant conducted an internal investigation and disciplined plaintiff and supervisors for violating the rule against modifying equipment. It could not bedetermined who attached the lifting device with bolts, because plaintiff falsely denied having done so -- both during the internal investigation and in his testimony at the disciplinary hearing. Instead, plaintiff claimed he went to the rest room and then took his break, and when he returned, the chain was already bolted to the lifting device. At trial, plaintiff claimed he gave this false information due to memory loss from the accident, but he did not express any memory difficulties during the disciplinary hearing on July 11, 2007, more than a month after the accident. Plaintiff acknowledges there was conflicting medical evidence as to whether he suffered a brain injury resulting in temporary memory loss.
Defendant suspended plaintiff from work for five days. He quit and took a job with the state Department of Water Resources.
According to plaintiff's testimony, all he did the day of the accident was follow coworker Franks's signals -- "I just did what he told me to do." The jury learned the parties stipulated that "no action or inaction by Shane Franks is a basis for fault against Union Pacific Railroad Company."
Plaintiff testified he listened to the crane's motor but did not hear or sense any motor strain. It never occurred to plaintiff to stop; he did not look at the lifting device as he pushed the button multiple times; and he gave no thought to the fact he had used bolts instead of shackles.
However, other witnesses who described how cranes operate testified the operator should sense the crane straining, though they were not present at plaintiff's accident. Though some had not operated this particular type of crane, the basic mechanics are the same.
Defendant's director of the locomotive facility, Dennis Magures, testified he expects a journeyman machinist to stop and find out what's wrong if he tries to remove a radiator and it is stuck. If you keep trying, "[y]ou're looking to have a failure" because "[s]omething is going to break." Magures has operated five-ton cranes, though not thisparticular one, and has been around cranes lifting things out of locomotives for 38 years. He testified a crane operator does not focus just on the person giving the hand signals, as plaintiff indicated he did. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial