James v. Railroad
| Decision Date | 03 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 16-2462 (MJD/HB) |
| Parties | Jerrell James, Plaintiff, v. Soo Line Railroad d/b/a Canadian Pacific, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Cortney S. LeNeave and Thomas W. Fuller, Hunegs, LeNeave & Kvas, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiff.
Jennifer K. Eggers, Timothy J. Carrigan and Allison N. Krueger, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Counsel for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and to exclude Plaintiff's Expert Lighting Opinions.
Plaintiff was hired as a conductor by Defendant Soo Line Railroad d/b/a Canadian Pacific ("Soo Line") in November 2014. Prior to his hire, Plaintiff earned an Associates Degree in Railroad Operations from the Northwest Railroad Institute in Vancouver, Washington. Plaintiff began the conductor's training program on November 18, 2014. The training consisted of two weeks in a classroom setting, six weeks in the area the trainee would work, and two final two weeks was devoted to completing the GCOR exam. (Fuller Decl., Ex. 1 (Plaintiff Dep. 18).) During this training, he learned how to tie hand brakes, line the switches, get on and off moving equipment and crossing over from one piece of equipment to another. (Id. 18-22.) He was shown a Powerpoint presentation describing the safe procedure for dismounting a moving locomotive and learned Canadian Pacific safety rules related to detraining from moving equipment. (Id. 138; Eggers Aff. Ex. 2 (CP Safety Rules & Safe Work Procedures Powerpoint); Ex. 3 (Rule T-11).) The training he received at Northwest Railroad Institute was similar, but more in depth, and also included training on how to get on and off moving equipment. (Id. 144.)
After the initial classroom training was completed, Plaintiff was sent to Harvey, North Dakota to begin on-the-job training for six weeks. (Fuller Decl. Ex. 1 (Plaintiff Dep. 18).) During that time, Plaintiff worked on approximately 18 train assignments. (Eggers Aff. Ex. 4 (Plaintiff's Work History).) He passed his exams in January 2015 and went back to Harvey to continue his on-the-job training. (Id. Ex. 5 (Exam Sheet); Fuller Decl. (Plaintiff Dep. 30).) On March 1,2015, Plaintiff was certified as a new conductor. (Eggers Aff. Ex. 6).)
On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff was working on the H74 train assignment with fellow crew members Doug Mattern and Darwin Dietz at the Voltaire, North Dakota railyard. (Fuller Decl. Ex. 1 (Plaintiff Dep. 75); Eggers Aff. Ex. 7 (Mattern Dep. 20); Ex. 8 (Dietz Dep. 6-7).) On that night, Mattern was the conductor, Dietz was the engineer and Plaintiff was the brakeman. (Eggers Aff. Ex. 7 (Mattern Dep. 20); Ex. 8 (Dietz Dep. 6-7).) As the conductor, Mattern was supervising Plaintiff. (Id. Ex. 7 (Mattern Dep. 20).)
Plaintiff was not familiar with the Voltaire yard, and the crew's supervisor, James Ferderer instructed that Plaintiff be given a map of the yard. (Fuller Decl. (Plaintiff Dep. 39-40).) Prior to the night of his injury, Plaintiff also had the opportunity to visit the Voltaire yard and familiarize himself with it by walking around with Mattern. (Id. 77.) When the crew got to the Voltaire yard on the night of March 12, 2015, Mattern was showing Plaintiff the proper way of doing certain jobs in the industry. (Id.) Plaintiff said he chose to walk along the tracks for the most part that night because he believed the conditions were muddy, and the light poor, and he was concerned about getting on and off movingequipment. (Id. 78-79.)
Right before the accident, Mattern instructed Plaintiff to get on the locomotive and ride it a short distance so he could get off the train and line the west end switch. (Id. 85-86.) Plaintiff got on the locomotive on the short nose and placed both hands on the handrails and held on at the bend of the stairs while his feet were positioned on the bottom, grated platform. (Id. 90-91.) Plaintiff's head was facing the direction in which the locomotive was moving, and his body was turned slightly to the side. (Id. 91.) He had a lantern on his wrist. (Id. 116.)
Plaintiff informed the engineer on the radio that he would be getting off the locomotive in three car lengths. (Id. 92, 97.) Plaintiff dismounted the locomotive, starting with his trailing foot, which was his right foot. (Id. 108.) He checked the area for debris before he dismounted and noted that the ground was muddy and soft. (Id. 109.)
At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that his right foot became stuck in the ground, causing him to roll and his left ankle to turn left. (Id. 112.) Later in the deposition, Plaintiff testified that it was his left foot that made the hole in the ground, and after his left ankle twisted left, he fell to the ground. (Id. 175.)Plaintiff did not claim a problem with his boots or the locomotive and he felt he was adequately trained to get off moving equipment. (Id. 120.) He believed the accident was caused by conditions on the ground and poor lighting. (Id. 123.)
The engineer stopped the train as soon as he saw Plaintiff on the ground. (Eggers Aff., Ex. 8 (Dietz Dep. 35).) An ambulance arrived 40 minutes later and took Plaintiff to Trinity Hospital in Minot, North Dakota where it was determined that Plaintiff suffered a lateral and posterior malleolar fracture of his left ankle and that surgery was required. (Fuller Decl., Ex. 1 (Plaintiff Dep. 147); Eggers Aff., Ex. 13.)
Plaintiff completed an injury report for Soo Line and listed as contributing factors "no lighting, muddy conditions, lack of fines, and no ballast whatsoever." (Fuller Decl., Ex. 1 (Plaintiff Dep. 124-25); Ex. 2 (Injury Report).)
Plaintiff's medical expert, John G. Stark, M.D., opined that Plaintiff cannot return to work as a conductor because that job requires him to be on his feet for long periods of time as well as walking on uneven ground. (Eggers Aff., Ex. 13 (Stark Report).) He further opined that Plaintiff could suffer the same injury detraining a non-moving locomotive. (Id., Ex. 14 (Stark Dep. 27-28).)
Canadian Pacific has a Train and Engine Safety Rule Book. (Id. Ex. 3.) Rule T-11 covers detraining moving equipment, and it provides that detraining moving equipment is permissible when conditions are determined to be safe. (Id.) Rule T-11 sets forth the procedures to follow before detraining. There are seven steps to be followed, which are:
Plaintiff alleges that Soo Line is liable for ordinary negligence under the Federal Employer's Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, in failing to provide a reasonably safe workplace and strictly liable for violation of safety statutes and/or statutes enacted for the safety of railroad employees.
Before the Court is Soo Line's motion for partial summary judgment. Soo Line seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's strict liability claims and his negligence claim to the extent it is based on allegations that Soo Line caused the accident with inadequate workplace illumination or by allowing employees to dismount from moving train equipment or any other training claims as such claims are precluded by federal law.
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
The role of trial courts is to serve as "gatekeepers to 'insure that the proffered expert testimony is both relevant and reliable.'" Wagner v. Hesston Corp., 450 F.3d 756, 758 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2003)). In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court provided some general observations for the lower courts to consider in making determinations as to whether the scientific knowledge is relevant and reliable, such as whether it has been tested, subjected to peer review and publication, what is the known or potential rate of error, and whether it is generally accepted. 509 U.S. 579, 593-95 (1993).
In Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, the Court extended the Daubert reasoning to non-scientist experts stating:
We conclude that Daubert's general principles apply to the expert matters described in Rule 702. The Rule, in respect to all such matters, 'establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability.' It 'requires a...
To continue reading
Request your trial