Lupia v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations

• Decision Date: 23 December 2022
• Docket Number: 21-cv-11077 (LJL)
• Parties: SCOTT LUPIA, Plaintiff, v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

SCOTT LUPIA, Plaintiff,
v.
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant.

No. 21-cv-11077 (LJL)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

December 23, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Defendant New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (“Defendant” or “NJT”) moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff Scott Lupia (“Plaintiff” or “Lupia”). Dkt. No. 36. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The following undisputed facts are drawn from the parties' statements of material facts submitted pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 and the evidence submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment and are construed in favor of the non-moving party. Dkt. No. 37 at 5; Dkt. No. 39-1.

At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, Lupia was employed as a locomotive engineer in the Hoboken Division of NJT. Dkt. No. 39-1 ¶ 1; see also Dkt. No. 12 ¶ 3. On July 21, 2021, Lupia entered the cab of his assigned locomotive (“Engine 4627”) of his train (“Train 6659”) at Penn Station and discovered that the cab air conditioning (“A/C”) unit was not working. Dkt. No. 39-1 ¶ 1. Lupia notified the Senior Train Master Sue Walker (“Walker”), who measured the cab's temperature at 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Id. NJT sent mechanical personnel to his cab, but they were unable to repair the A/C unit, which according to the

1

railroad's service records, had first been reported inoperable six weeks earlier. Id. Train 6659 had been commissioned on or around 2001. Dkt. No. 37 at 5 ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 38 ¶ 5.

After observing the conditions in the cab, Walker called her supervisor, Chief Train Master Malik Little (“Little”). Dkt. No. 39-1 ¶ 2. Walker told Little that the A/C unit was broken and could not be repaired. She also told Little that the temperature in the cab was 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Id. Little nonetheless ordered Lupia to operate the train as scheduled. Id. At the time that Little made this order, he knew of prior instances in which NJT engineers required medical assistance after operating a train when the ambient cab temperature was above 100 degrees. Id. Little also believed that NJT prohibited locomotive engineers from refusing to operate a locomotive without A/C. Id. According to Little, if the engineer refused to operate the locomotive with inoperable A/C, he or she could be charged with insubordination and fired. Id.

Approximately forty minutes after departing from Penn Station, Lupia collapsed from heat exhaustion. Id. ¶ 3. He was found unresponsive on the floor of the cab. Id. Video from the cab shows Lupia slumping to his left, falling out of his chair, and hitting his head and neck on hard metal surfaces. Id. He was diagnosed with head and neck injuries which required extensive medical treatment and resulted in permanent career-ending disabilities. Id.; Dkt. No. 37 at 5 ¶ 2.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 27, 2021. Dkt. No. 1. His complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Federal Employers' Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action under FELA. The first cause of action alleges that Defendant was negligent in one or more of the following ways: (1) failing to inspect the locomotive cab A/C unit to confirm it was operating properly; (2) failing to maintain the A/C unit to ensure it was operating properly; (3) failing to repair the A/C unit to ensure it operated properly; (4) failing to determine that the locomotive was not safe to operate given that the A/C

2

unit was not functioning; (5) failing to provide an alternate locomotive with a properly operating A/C unit; and (6) failing to cancel the train given that the locomotive cab did not have a properly operating A/C unit. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 20.^[1] Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to use reasonable care to provide Plaintiff with a safe place in which to work. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff's second cause of action alleges that Defendant violated FELA by failing to provide Plaintiff with a locomotive with all its parts and appurtenances safe to operate as intended in violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq., and that as a result of such violation, Plaintiff was injured. Id. ¶¶ 25-27.

Defendant filed its answer on February 17, 2022. Dkt. No. 12. Defendant sought leave to file a third-party complaint on October 11, 2022, Dkt. No. 26, and after subsequent briefing, Dkt. Nos. 29, 33, the Court denied that motion by opinion and order on October 31, 2022, Dkt. No. 35. Finally, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment and accompanying declaration on November 1, 2022. Dkt. No. 36. Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion for summary judgment on November 11, 2022. Dkt. No. 39. Defendant filed its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment on November 15, 2022. Dkt. No. 40.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

3

And “[a]n issue of fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” WWBITV, Inc. v. Village of Rouses Point, 589 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting SCR Joint Venture L.P. v. Warshawsky, 559 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2009)). “[I]n assessing the record to determine whether there is a genuine issue to be tried as to any material fact, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2008).

The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). If the movant meets its burden, “the nonmoving party must come forward with admissible evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact for trial in order to avoid summary judgment.” Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 536 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2008). To survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party “may not rely on mere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts,” Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451, 1456 (2d Cir. 1995)), and must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The nonmoving party “cannot defeat the motion by relying on the allegations in [its] pleading, or on conclusory statements, or on mere assertions that affidavits supporting the motion are not credible.” Gottlieb v. Cnty. of Orange, 84 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted). But if “the party opposing summary judgment propounds a reasonable conflicting interpretation of a material disputed fact,” summary judgment must be denied. Schering Corp. v. Home Ins. Co., 712 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir. 1983).

4

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the basis that (i) A/C units do not qualify as a “part” or “appurtenance” under the LIA; (ii) the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) regulation cited in Plaintiff's complaint, 49 C.F.R. § 229.119, does not apply because Train 6659 entered into service prior to June 8, 2012; and (iii) the Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”), 49 U.S.C. § 20102 et seq., precludes Plaintiff's claims. Dkt. No. 37. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.

I. The Locomotive Inspection Act

Initially enacted in 1911 as the Boiler Inspection Act (“BIA”), the LIA makes it unlawful to use a “locomotive or tender on [a railroad carrier's] railroad line” when the “parts and appurtenances” of such locomotive or tender are not, inter alia, “in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury.” 49 U.S.C. § 20701.^[2] The current version of statute provides that:

5

A railroad carrier may use or allow to be used a locomotive or tender on its railroad line only when the locomotive or tender and its parts and appurtenances--

(1) are in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury;

(2) have been inspected as required under this chapter and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under this chapter; and

(3) can withstand every test prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter.

49 U.S.C. § 20701.^[3] This provision has been read as coextensive with regulations of the FRA, under which the FRA may impose certain civil monetary penalties against violators. See 49 C.F.R. § 229.7;^[4] see also Transportation Div. of Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail v. Fed. R.R.

6

Admin., 40 F.4th 646, 659 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (referencing the two provisions in tandem); Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., 909 F.3d 1280, 1285, 1287 (10th Cir. 2018) (construing and analyzing the term “appurtenance” for claims under statute and regulation in tandem regarding a faulty seat adjustment mechanism and stating that Section 229.7 “reiterat[es] the duties LIA imposes on railroad operators”); Scarpa v. Providence & Worcester R.R., Inc., 2020 WL 4449788, at *3 (D. Conn. Aug. 3, 2020) (reading the two provisions in tandem).

Section 20701 and the LIA do “not purport to confer any right of action upon injured employees.” Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 188 (1949). The action under the LIA, instead, arises under FELA. Id.; see also 45 U.S.C. § 51 (providing a cause of action of negligence for employees of a common carrier...