Hopkins v. Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc.

Decision Date28 August 2017
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3: 17 - CV - 839 (CSH)
PartiesBRIAN HOPKINS; JONELL HOPKINS, individually; JONELL HOPKINS ppa JOSEPH HOPKINS, JONELL HOPKINS ppa LUKE HOPKINS; JONELL HOPKINS ppa EVE HOPKINS; and JAKE HOPKINS; Plaintiffs, v. KAWASAKI RAIL CAR, INC. and KAWASAKI MOTORS MANUFACTURING CORP., U.S.A., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

RULING ON DEFENDANT KAWASAKI RAIL CAR, INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT [DOC. 37]

I. BACKGROUND

In this removed civil action for grievous electrocution injuries, one defendant now requests leave to amend its third-party complaint for the second time. The facts recounted here are based on the pleadings filed in this Court.

On or about April 17, 2017, Plaintiffs Brian Hopkins and Jonell Hopkins, and their four children, commenced this civil action against defendants Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc. ("KRC") and Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A. ("KMMC") (collectively "Defendants") in Connecticut Superior Court, the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport.1 In their Complaint,Plaintiffs alleged that on or about April 25, 2015, Brian Hopkins, while employed by Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ("Metro-North"), was in the process of putting Kawasaki M8S rail cars into service when he became injured "suddenly and without warning" by "an electrocution and electrical arch flash . . . in the Acceptance Facility" located at the "eastern side of the New Haven Rail Yard in New Haven, Connecticut." Doc. 1, First Count ¶¶ 3, 6, 8. Said electrocution allegedly involved a defective pantograph and live catenary wires in the Acceptance Facility.2

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Defendant KRC "owned, controlled and/or possessed the M8 Acceptance Facility;" was responsible for its maintenance and operation; and "created, allowed and/or maintained" that facility so that it created a "reasonably foreseeable risk of electrocution to persons putting M8 and M8S cars into service." Id. ¶¶ 3-7. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that KMMC was the corporation which "engaged in the design, manufacture, wholesaling, distribution, promotion and/or retailing in Connecticut" of the defective pantograph which contributed or caused Brian Hopkins's electrocution. Id., Fourth Count ¶ 4.

As the result of the electrocution, Plaintiff Brian Hopkins has allegedly suffered "serious, painful and permanent injuries," including but not limited to: "[f]ull thickness electrocution burns covering forty percent of his body;" "[p]artial thickness electrocution burns covering his left forearm and palm;" "[c]ardiac arrest requiring emergency resuscitation;" "[p]olymicrobial secondary infections to his left ankle and lower leg, exposing bone and tendon;" "[s]exual dysfunction requiring full reconstructive surgery;" "[p]ersistent dehydration and gastrointestinal distress;" "cognitive impairment;" "[r]ecurrent headaches;" "[i]nsomnia and disordered sleeping;" and "[p]ermanentdisfigurement." Id., First Count ¶ 13. Plaintiff Brian Hopkins has also allegedly suffered various forms of mental distress (e.g., shock to his nervous system, anxiety, distress, post-traumatic stress, depression). Id. ¶ 14. All of the aforesaid grievous injuries have led to the expenditure of "sums of money for medical care and treatment" and will require future payment of such expenses. Plaintiff has allegedly lost his earnings, earning capacity, and former lifestyle, all of which have negatively impacted his wife and children.

Among the claims set forth in their Complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged common law negligence and statutory product liability violations, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m, et seq., against each of the Defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs have alleged that KRC violated Connecticut's building, fire and demolition code, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-252, et seq., id., Second Court ¶ 14; Defendants defectively designed and manufactured the pantograph at issue, id. Fourth count ¶¶ 8-19, 34-42; Defendants failed to warn or instruct Brian Hopkins regarding the "significant danger of electrocution in testing the pantograph," id. ¶¶ 20-27; there existed a "malfunction" due to a "defect in the pantograph," id. ¶¶ 28-33; there has been a loss of consortium by Jonell Hopkins due to her husband Brian's injuries, id. Fifth Count ¶¶ 91-92; and the Hopkins children have lost their "parental care, training, love, and companionship of their father," id. Sixth Count ¶¶ 91- 95. With respect to damages, Plaintiffs pray for money damages, punitive damages, any other appropriate relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, id. Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 1-4.

On May 19, 2017, Defendants removed Plaintiffs' state action to this District in a timely manner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.3 In their Notice of Removal, they asserted that thisCourt has subject matter jurisdiction over the action because it "involves a controversy wholly between citizens of different states" so that there is "diversity of jurisdiction" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). According to Defendants, both KRC and KMMC are corporate entities. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its principal place of business." Defendants assert that KRC is "a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Yonkers, New York" and is thus a citizen of New York. See Doc. 1 ("Notice of Removal") ¶ 5. KMMC is "a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Lincoln, Nebraska" and is accordingly a citizen of Nebraska. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiffs are, "[u]pon information and belief, . . . citizens of the State of Connecticut."4 Id. ¶ 7. Upon these facts, the citizenship of all Plaintiffs is completely diverse from that of both Defendants.

Furthermore, from the face of the Complaint, given the extensive injuries Brian Hopkins allegedly suffered from electrocution on April 25, 2015, the Court concurs with Defendants that "it appears that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000[,] exclusive of interest and costs." Id. ¶ 10. Consequently, this action meets the jurisdictional amount in damages for "diversity of citizenship" subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

A. History of Third-Party Complaints

Following removal of this action, each Defendant filed a third-party complaint against Metro-North and Trans Tech of South Carolina, Inc. ("Trans Tech"), asserting that this Court "may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims therein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367." Doc. 22 & 23. In KRC's original third-party complaint, it alleged that "[o]n or about December 18, 2009, KRC and Metro-North entered into a written and signed License Agreement whereby Metro-North, as Licensor, permitted KRC, as Licensee, use of a portion of the New Haven Railyard." Doc. 22, ¶ 14. Moreover, "Metro-North reserved unto itself and its employees the right to use the Licensed Premises to conduct its railroad business operations." Id. ¶ 16. KRC further alleged that as an employee of Metro-North, Brian Hopkins was "under the supervision and control of Metro-North, on a portion of the Licensed Premises" at the New Haven Rail Yard at the time he was injured in April of 2015. Id. ¶ 18.

As to Metro-North, KRC asserted claims for apportionment and common law and contractual indemnification. First, in its apportionment claim, KRC alleged that Metro-North is or may be liable, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h, for some or all of Plaintiffs' damages or losses; and said damages and/or losses should be apportioned to Metro-North under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-102b and 52-572h. Id. ¶ 39. Second, as to common law indemnification, KRC alleged that it was Metro-North's negligence, rather that any act or omission by KRC, that was the "direct and immediate cause of the alleged accident and resulting injuries and damages." Id. ¶ 42. Third, with respect to contractual indemnification, KRC alleged that "[p]ursuant to [paragraph 6 of] the License Agreement" with Metro-North, KRC was not "responsible [for] the acts or omissions of Metro-North's contractors, agents, employees or others" performing work on or "otherwise accessing theLicensed Premises." Id. ¶ 48. KRC asserted that it was consequently entitled to indemnification for any damages inflicted on Plaintiffs due to the fault or negligence of Metro-North. Id. ¶¶ 49-50.

With respect to Trans Tech, KRC alleged contractual and common law indemnification claims and contribution. First, to make out a claim for contractual indemnification, KRC alleged that on or about May 23, 2007, KRC and Trans Tech entered into a written and signed subcontract under which Trans Tech, agreed to "design and manufacture pantographs for KRC." Id. ¶ 53. Furthermore, in that subcontract, Trans Tech agreed to be held "responsible for . . . all injuries (including death) to all persons" which "occurr[ed] on account of, or in connection with, the performance of Subcontract Work." Id. ¶ 55 (citing and quoting Article 6.01A of Subcontract). Trans Tech also allegedly "promised and agreed . . . that its work would be free from defects." Id. ¶ 56. Under these provisions, KRC alleged that Trans Tech must "indemnify KRC for any claims, losses, damages and expenses incurred in connection with this case." Id. ¶ 57.

Next, in pleading a common law indemnification claim, KRC alleged that Trans Tech was in complete "control over the design and manufacture of the pantograph," including "its component parts and/or product warnings or instructions." Id. ¶ 59. Moreover, KRC had no knowledge of any negligence on the part of Trans Tech or any product defect or any failure to warn or instruct Brian Hopkins regarding the pantograph's use. Id. ¶ 61. KRC thus asserted that Trans Tech was liable to indemnify KRC for damages incurred by Plaintiffs due to the negligence of Trans Tech and/or the pantograph...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT