Murphy v. Union Pacific R. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 27116.,27116.
• Citation: 57 P.3d 799,138 Idaho 88
• Parties: William R. MURPHY, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

57 P.3d 799

138 Idaho 88

William R. MURPHY, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 27116.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Pocatello, September 2002 Term.

October 24, 2002.

Cooper & Larsen, Chtd., Pocatello, for appellant. Reed W. Larsen argued.

Kent W. Hansen, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

KIDWELL, Justice.

On February 21, 1999, the appellant, William R. Murphy (Murphy), tripped, fell, and suffered injuries during the course of his employment with the respondent, Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific). Murphy filed a claim for damages under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 (1997), et seq. The district court granted Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Murphy failed to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial on the issue of proximate cause. Murphy timely filed this appeal.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 21, 1999, Murphy was employed by Union Pacific as a "carman" in its Pocatello rail yard. While performing his duties near "Track 5," Murphy twisted his ankle, fell, and injured his ankle and elbow. No one witnessed the accident.

Murphy filed a FELA claim alleging that Union Pacific's negligent track maintenance practices created an unsafe working environment that caused his fall and resulting injuries. Murphy alleged in his verified complaint that Union Pacific's negligence, in particular its failure to maintain adequate walking paths, caused his injuries. On August 10, 2000, Union Pacific filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Murphy lacked any proof that Union Pacific's negligence actually or proximately caused his fall. For purposes of summary judgment, Union Pacific admitted that it negligently failed to maintain the area of the track on which Murphy fell. Murphy's deposition testimony served as the basis for Union Pacific's argument that Murphy lacked proof on the element of causation.

Murphy's deposition transcript includes the following questions and answers relevant to causation:

(1) Q. Referring back to the date of the accident, you said that you stepped in something. Do you know what it was that you stepped in or on that caused you to fall?

A. You know, I didn't really pay any attention because we had another train but it's so uneven down there it could have been anything.

(2) Q. And, as I understand it, you don't know what it was that caused your foot to roll?

A. No.

Q. You don't know whether you stepped on anything or not?

A. It could have been the edge of a tie or that little insulator they have, you know, there is a lot of stumbling hazards down there.

(3) Q. And you don't know for sure what it was, you are just speculating that it could have been uneven ground or [the insulator], right?

A. Yes.

(4) Q. And I believe that you testified earlier that you weren't sure whether you stepped on anything or just on uneven ground; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So the fact that there may have been trash in the area, you don't know whether that actually caused you to fall or not?

A. Like I say, the switch areas aren't— you know, they are not used that much so they are fairly clean compared to the rest of the track.

(5) Q. But you don't know whether you stepped in a hole or on trash, do you?

A. Not for sure.

Q. You may have just stepped on ballast or the side of a tie, correct?

A. The side of a tie, because you can see in the picture (indicating) where there is no ballast in between the ties.

In response to Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment, Murphy filed an affidavit stating the following regarding the issue of causation:

After the incident and upon inspecting the area, there are numerous tripping and stumbling hazards which consist of uneven ballast, the large ballast, and the rough and loose ties. Because it was dark and because I fell, I do not know with 100% certainty as to what caused me to trip and fall. There are numerous stumbling hazards. However, I believe it is more probably true that I stepped in one of the uneven areas of the ties and large ballast and stumbling hazards which caused me to fall. I readily acknowledge that it was possible that I may have stepped on the insulator and had that cause my fall. However, that is only a possibility, not a probability. I do not believe that the insulator was the probable cause of my tripping and falling. I believe that the probable cause which caused me to fall was the rough, uneven, and unmaintained areas where the switch was located. I have tried to explain to the Railroad on numerous occasions that there are numerous stumbling hazards. If the area would have been properly maintained and had a proper toe path, I would not have tripped/slipped and fallen and injured myself. If the Railroad would have provided me with a reasonable safe place to work by providing a smooth, solid, and firm footing, this accident would have been prevented.

After considering the affidavits, admissions, and depositions on file, the district court found that Murphy failed to offer evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific. Murphy timely appealed to this Court arguing that the district court erred in finding that the record lacked evidence of causation and in granting summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. When reviewing an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, this Court employs the same standard used by the district court originally ruling on the motion. . . . [T]his Court should liberally construe all facts in favor of the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the nonmoving party. Summary judgment must be denied if reasonable persons could reach differing conclusions or draw conflicting inferences from the evidence presented. . . .

Northwest Bec-Corp. v. Home Living Service, 136 Idaho 835, 838-39, 41 P.3d 263, 266-67 (2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Did The District Court Err By Granting Summary Judgment In Favor Of Union Pacific On The Grounds That Murphy Failed To Offer Evidence Of Causation Sufficient To Create A Genuine Issue For Trial?

1. Is The Burden That A Non-Moving Plaintiff Must Meet To Withstand A Motion For Summary Judgment Relaxed In Actions Brought Pursuant To FELA?

Murphy argues that FELA has a relaxed causation standard and, as a result, the threshold for withstanding a motion for summary judgment in actions brought pursuant to FELA is less stringent than the standard in common law negligence cases. Union Pacific contends that, though FELA's causation standards are relaxed, Murphy still bears the burden of producing facts that support the existence of a causal connection, however slight, between Union Pacific's negligence and Murphy's injury.

Railroad employees may bring claims for personal injury suffered in the course of employment pursuant to FELA. Howell v. Eastern Idaho R.R., Inc., 135 Idaho 733, 736, 24 P.3d 50, 53 (2001); Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 507 n. 14, 77 S.Ct. 443, 449, n. 14, 1 L.Ed.2d 493,...