Jesski v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp.
| Citation | 560 F.Supp.3d 1252 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-2070-CJW-MAR |
| Parties | Hannah JESSKI, as Executrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Dixie Blazier; Glenda Mundis; and Robert Mundis, Plaintiffs, v. DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa |
Larry Bendesky, Pro Hac Vice, Robert William Zimmerman, Pro Hac Vice, Scott A. Fellmeth, Pro Hac Vice, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC, Philadelphia, PA, Steven V. Lawyer, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs.
James D. Helenhouse, Stephen Joseph Rynn, Thomas C. Paschalis, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 102). Plaintiffs timely filed a resistance, (Doc. 115), and defendant timely filed a reply (Doc. 118).
For the following reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted .
This matter arises out of vehicle-locomotive collision (the "collision") that occurred on December 1, 2017, in Nora Springs, Iowa. (Docs. 102-1, at 1; 115-3, at 1). The following background facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. The Court will discuss additional facts below as they become relevant to the Court's analysis.
Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation ("defendant" or "DM&E") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc. 31, at 3). James Blazier was the driver of the Chevrolet Equinox ("Blazier vehicle") that was involved in the vehicle-locomotive collision. (Docs. 102-1, at 1; 115-3, at 1). Mr. Blazier's wife, Dixie Blazier, was in the front passenger seat of the vehicle. (Docs. 102-1, at 1; 115-3, at 1). Mr. Blazier's sister-in-law, Glenda Mundis, was also a passenger and was seated in the rear seat of the vehicle. (Docs. 102-1, at 1; 115-3, at 1). Robert Mundis is married to Glenda Mundis and was not a passenger in the vehicle on the day of the collision.
On December 1, 2017, Mr. Blazier, along with the two passengers, was driving northbound on Zinnia Avenue near Nora Springs, Iowa. (Docs. 102-1, at 2; 115-3, at 1). It was a sunny day with good visibility, no roadway precipitation, and overall suitable driving conditions. (Docs. 102-1, at 2; 115-3, at 1). Zinnia Avenue crosses over defendant's main line railroad track at U.S. Department of Transportation grade crossing number 385-463L. (Docs. 102-1, at 1; 115-3, at 1). The parties agree the crossing was not equipped with gate arms, cantilevered flashing light signals, or an event recorder. (Doc. 118-2, at 2). The parties also agree, however, that the road leading up to the crossing had a yellow railroad advance warning sight with an X and two Rs located 713 feet south of the crossing, white pavement markings consisting of a white X with two white Rs located 715 feet south of the crossing, a railroad crossbuck sign located just south of the crossing, and a white stop line for northbound motorists located 24.8 feet south of the crossing. (Docs. 102-1, at 2–3; 115-3, at 2). There were also two sets of flashing lights on each side of the tracks, but the parties disagree whether the lights were working properly on the day of the collision. (Doc. 118-2, 21–22).
At the same time the Blaziers’ vehicle was driving north, a locomotive owned by defendant was traveling westbound on the tracks. The locomotive did not have any cars or cargo attached and was being operated by an engineer ("Mr. E") and a conductor ("Mr. C"). (Doc. 118-2, at 4). As the locomotive approached the Zinnia Avenue crossing it was travelling at 22.1 miles per hour.1 (Id. ). According to defendant, the locomotive's headlights and front ditch lights were on and functioning. (Doc. 102-1, at 17). Defendant also notes Mr. E engaged the locomotive's warning bells and sounded the locomotive's horn in a long-long-short-long pattern beginning 27 seconds before the locomotive reached the crossing. (Id. , at 13). The locomotive's event data recorder confirmed this. (Doc. 102-1, at 14). Mrs. Mundis, however, testified she did not hear the horn or bells. (Doc. 115-4, at 191). Both Mr. E and Mr. C had a clear line of the Blaziers’ vehicle when the locomotive was about 308 feet from the crossing and the vehicle was about 735 feet from the crossing. (Doc. 118-2, at 4–5). At some point, Mr. E lost sight of the vehicle and Mr. C looked away from the vehicle to look for southbound traffic on the opposite side of the highway. (Id. , at 7–8). The vehicle and the locomotive then collided; specifically, the right-front of the vehicle struck the left side of the locomotive at approximately the same time the front of the locomotive struck the front passenger side of the vehicle. (Id. , at 10). Mr. E engaged the emergency brakes, although the parties disagree whether he did that before the collision or after the collision. (Id. , at 11). Mr. and Mrs. Blazier died as a result of the collision and Mrs. Mundis sustained significant physical and mental injuries. (Id. , at 14).
It is generally undisputed that a highway-rail grade crossing warning system must be maintained to activate in accordance with the design of the warning system, and the warning system must, at a minimum, provide 20 seconds warning time before the train arrives at the crossing. (Id. , at 18). In its simplest terms, the warning system at the crossing is connected to the rails by wires and a frequency is sent through the rails to a point 1,727 feet east of the crossing. (Doc. 102-1, at 5). When a train arrives within 1,727 feet of the crossing it crosses over the rails it shorts the circuit, which in turn activates the warning system. (Id. ). The system is powered by constantly charged batteries and if the batteries go out, the warning system will active continuously to call attention to the required maintenance. (Id. ). In the months leading up to the collision, the track and crossing were inspected multiple times—including an inspection two weeks before the collision—and were found to be operating properly. (Doc. 102-1, at 6–7). Plaintiffs, however, argue the testing was not performed properly. (Doc. 115-3, at 5).
An investigation and additional testing also occurred after the collision. First, the Iowa State Patrol investigated after the collision. (Doc. 118-2, at 11). The State Patrol Officer investigating the collision walked and photographed the roadway south of the crossing, but did not access the locomotive, the operator's cab of the locomotive, the complete data printout from the locomotive's event recorder, or information on when and how the locomotive's brakes were activated. (Docs. 102-1, at 16; 118-2, at 12). The officers did observe the signals activate properly, however, after the collision. (Doc. 102-1, at 8). Second, representatives for defendant also conducted their own post-collision investigation. (Doc. 102-1, at 7-8). The investigation included testing the signal system, visually observing the signal system as another train went passed the intersection, and downloading information from the locomotive's data recording system. (Doc. 102-1, at 7–8, 14). Investigators for both the Iowa State Patrol and defendant spoke with Mr. C and Mr. E and determined drug testing and sobriety testing was not necessary as neither was exhibiting symptoms that would have triggered the need for a test. (Doc. 102-1, at 22).
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). When asserting that a fact is undisputed or is genuinely disputed, a party must support the assertion by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations ..., admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A) ; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Alternatively, a party may show that "the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(B). More specifically, a "party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2).
A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law[.]" Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citation omitted). "An issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record," Hartnagel v. Norman , 953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted), or "when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the question," Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Evidence that presents only "some metaphysical doubt as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial