Morris v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 5–14–0622.
| Decision Date | 25 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 5–14–0622.,5–14–0622. |
| Citation | 39 N.E.3d 1156 |
| Parties | Shawn P. MORRIS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William P. Gavin, Gavin Law Firm, Belleville, IL, for Appellant.
Thomas E. Jones, Harlan A. Harla, Thompson Coburn LLP, Belleville, IL, for Appellee.
delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 The plaintiff, Shawn P. Morris, a locomotive engineer for the defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company, suffered an injury in a work-related incident. The incident involved a surprise encounter with a trespasser inside a dark, unlit interior of one of the defendant's locomotives. The trespasser knocked the plaintiff backward as he escaped out of an unlocked door at the nose of the locomotive. The plaintiff fell backward and sustained injuries. He brought a personal injury claim against the defendant pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) (45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (2006)
), alleging that the defendant's negligence played a part in his injuries. He appeals an order of the circuit court granting a summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The issue on appeal is whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff's risk of injury was foreseeable. We reverse the circuit court's summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 3 The plaintiff's injuries occurred on August 4, 2010, at approximately 10 p.m., at the defendant's Villa Grove, Illinois, railroad yard. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff and a conductor, Tom Moore, were maneuvering five locomotives in the defendant's rail yard in preparation for transporting a line of railroad cars south to the defendant's rail yard facility in Salem, Illinois. The locomotives had arrived at the Villa Grove yard approximately 30 minutes earlier as part of a train that traveled from the defendant's yard in Chicago, Illinois. The Villa Grove yard is on the defendant's railway that runs between Chicago and Salem. It is south of the defendant's rail yard in Chicago and north of the defendant's rail yard in Salem.
¶ 4 At the time of the incident, the plaintiff's typical job assignment was to drive the defendant's trains between Villa Grove and Salem. A different train crew drove the train on which the injury occurred to the Villa Grove yard and got off the train to hand it over to the plaintiff's crew. The plaintiff talked with the arriving crew about how the train handled on the trip from Chicago, boarded the train, and began the process of dropping off and picking up railcars in preparation for the trip to the Salem yard.
¶ 5 The plaintiff testified that part of his job duties that evening required him to couple the five newly arrived locomotives with a sixth locomotive that was already located in the yard. In order to do this, the plaintiff boarded the last locomotive in the line of five locomotives and moved the locomotives so that the locomotives coupled with the sixth locomotive. At that point, the plaintiff was onboard the second to last locomotive in a line of six locomotives, and the new, sixth locomotive became the last locomotive in the line.
¶ 6 Once the sixth locomotive connected with the other locomotives, the plaintiff had to board the sixth locomotive to adjust its headlight switch to indicate that it was now the rear locomotive in the line. After performing the required tasks in the cab of the sixth locomotive, the plaintiff reentered the cab of the fifth locomotive through a door at the rear of the cab. Inside the cab of the fifth locomotive, the plaintiff adjusted a headlight switch to indicate that the fifth locomotive was now an intermediate locomotive rather than the rear locomotive.
¶ 7 In addition to the door at the rear of the cab, the fifth locomotive also had an outside door at its nose. To reach the nose door from the inside of the cab, the plaintiff had to walk down a flight of steps within the interior of the locomotive. After adjusting the headlight switch in the cab of the fifth locomotive, the plaintiff began walking down the interior steps with the intention of exiting the fifth locomotive through its unlocked nose door.
¶ 8 As the fifth locomotive in a line of six, the fifth locomotive was towed without generating any power. Therefore, the defendant's rules required that the circuit breakers that would enable lighting within the fifth locomotive be switched to the off position. This prevented the interior cab lights from being turned on when the locomotive was not operating and producing power. As a result, it was dark inside the fifth locomotive as the plaintiff descended its interior stairs. The plaintiff used a flashlight to light his way while performing job duties inside the fifth locomotive. The plaintiff could see only the areas inside the locomotive at which he pointed his flashlight.
¶ 9 The incident that resulted in the plaintiff's injuries occurred as he began descending the locomotive's interior stairs. He pointed his flashlight down the stairs as he walked, and a trespasser came toward him from his right. The plaintiff could not see the trespasser until the trespasser moved by him, and at that point, he only saw the trespasser's arm and silhouette. As the trespasser ran past him, he felt an elbow to his chest and gut, which knocked him backward, resulting in injuries to his left shoulder and back. The trespasser fled out of the nose door and was never seen again. Approximately 30 minutes had elapsed from the time the locomotive arrived at the Villa Grove yard to the time of the plaintiff's encounter with the trespasser. The plaintiff did not know how, when, or why the trespasser got onto the locomotive but believed that perhaps he was “hitching a ride.”
¶ 11 On August 29, 2013, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant under FELA seeking damages in excess of $50,000 for his injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, through its agents and employees, was guilty of one or more of the following negligent acts or omissions: (1) negligently failed to provide the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work; (2) negligently failed to take adequate steps to secure its locomotives from the presence of trespassers when the defendant knew or should have known of the likelihood of such trespassers; (3) negligently failed to take adequate steps to secure its premises from the presence of trespassers when the defendant knew or should have known of the likelihood of such trespassers; (4) negligently failed to detect the presence of trespassers on its locomotives in its Villa Grove facilities; (5) negligently failed to detect the presence of trespassers on its premises in its Villa Grove facilities; (6) negligently failed to warn the plaintiff of the presence of trespassers on its locomotives in its Villa Grove facilities; and/or (7) negligently failed to warn the plaintiff of the presence of trespassers on its premises in its Villa Grove facilities.
¶ 12 In its answer to the complaint, the defendant did not dispute that the plaintiff was engaged in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured but denied any negligence. On July 7, 2014, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's injuries were the result of a criminal assault by an unknown individual; that the assault was an unforeseeable event; and that, as a matter of law, it had no duty to protect the plaintiff from the unforeseeable event. Both parties presented affidavits and deposition testimony relevant to the issue of foreseeability.
¶ 13 The plaintiff testified in his deposition that the defendant had a safety rule that stated that if he encountered unauthorized people on the defendant's property, he was to tell them to leave, and if they failed to leave, he was to report the incident. A copy of this safety rule is included in the record on appeal and is discussed further in our analysis below.
¶ 14 The plaintiff testified that he had worked for the defendant since July 2002. Although he had never experienced a similar incident with a trespasser resulting in personal injury, he did have an incident in 2008 or 2009 involving two trespassers on top of his train that was traveling on the defendant's railway between the Salem and Villa Grove yards. He learned of the trespassers from a dispatcher who had received a report of the trespassers on top of the train. According to the plaintiff, he continued to Villa Grove where Villa Grove police officers attempted to apprehend the trespassers. The plaintiff believed that a Villa Grove police officer was injured while chasing the trespassers.
¶ 15 The plaintiff also testified that he had also been at the defendant's railroad yard in Salem, Illinois, on at least three occasions when police responded to apprehend trespassers in the yard. He testified that the Salem yard was similar to the Villa Grove yard in that “locomotives and railroad cars are stored and assembled there by [the defendant's] employees.”
¶ 16 The plaintiff testified in his affidavit that on August 6, 2010, he spoke with Jim Magner, a police officer employed by the defendant, concerning the incident with the trespasser that resulted in his injuries. According to the plaintiff, Magner told him that “there was a harvest occurring on the farms north of Chicago and [the defendant's] Police Department had been receiving reports of trespassers aboard [the defendant's] trains traveling between Salem, Illinois, Villa Grove, Illinois, and Chicago, Illinois.” The plaintiff also alleged in his affidavit that “[a]t the time of the incident, it was very common for train crews employed by [the defendant] in and out of the yards at Salem, Illinois[,] and Villa Grove, Illinois[,] to have to walk in and/or work in remote and dark areas to locate, board, and work with locomotives” and that “[i]t...
To continue reading
Request your trial