Nelson v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 18-cv-13393
• Parties: GLEN NELSON, Plaintiff, v. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

GLEN NELSON, Plaintiff, v. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-13393

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

June 25, 2020

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 21); (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 20); and (3) TERMINATING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE AS MOOT (ECF No. 23)

Plaintiff Glen Nelson is an engineer for Defendant Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company ("Grand Trunk"). On January 11, 2016, Nelson injured his back as he was attempting to repair a defective air brake hose on a Grand Trunk train that had come to a brief stop during a regularly scheduled trip. In this action, Nelson brings a claim against Grand Trunk under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (the "FELA"). Nelson alleges, among other things, that he may recover damages from Grand Trunk under FELA because Grand Trunk violated the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20302 (the "FSAA") and because that violation caused his injuries. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 9.) The parties have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 20, 21.) Nelson has also filed a motion in limine to exclude certain Grand Trunk employees from testifying as expert witnesses. (See Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 23.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART Nelson's motion for summary judgment, DENIES Grand Trunk's motion for summary judgment, and TERMINATES Nelson's motion in limine as moot.

I

The relevant background facts are largely undisputed. Nelson began working for Grand Trunk as a maintenance worker in 1989. (See Nelson Dep. at 12, ECF No. 22-3, PageID.234.) On January 11, 2016, Nelson was working as an engineer on train number L57361. (See id. at 38, PageID.260.) Train L57361 is a "local puller." (Id.) On January 11th, Train L57361's route began at Grand Trunk's Flat Rock Yard and ended at Ford Yard. (See id.; see also id. at 99-101, PageID.321-323.) Train L57361 initially included 11 railcars. (See id.) Railcar CSXT 180589 was located directly behind the locomotive. (See id. at 63-65, PageID.285-287.)

Before Train L57361 left the Flat Rock Yard, Nelson inspected the locomotive, and train conductor Thomas Simpson, Jr. (or another Grand Trunk maintenance employee) inspected the railcars. (See id. at 45-47, PageID.267-269.) If the inspections had revealed that something was "wrong" with the locomotive or the railcars, Train L57361 would not have departed the yard. (Id. at 47, PageID.269.) Instead, Nelson and his colleagues "would have sent the [broken] car out or we would have fixed it right there." (Id.) The record does not contain any evidence that Nelson, Simpson, or any other Grand Trunk employee found any problem with the locomotive or railcars before Train L57361 left the Flat Rock Yard.

Train L57361 and its 11 railcars left the Flat Rock Yard at approximately 6:11 p.m. (See id. at 48, PageID.270.) The train thereafter stopped at "Control Point Rodney" inorder to pick up 10 additional railcars. (See id. at 50, PageID.272.) These additional cars were located on a sidetrack known as the "Fence Track." (Id. at 50-51, PageID.272-273.) When TrainL57361 first arrived at Control Point Rodney, it "dropp[ed]" its original 11 railcars on the "main track at Rodney."¹ (Id. at 54, PageID.276; Department of Transportation "Railroad Employee Injury and/or Illness Record" Form, ECF No. 22-5, PageID.567.) The crew then drove the locomotive to the Fence Track, connected the locomotive to the 10 additional railcars, and returned to the main track in order to reconnect the initial 11 railcars that had been dropped on that track. (See Nelson Dep. at 61, ECF No. 22-3, PageID.283.)

Upon returning to the main track, the crew successfully reattached the original 11 railcars to the locomotive. (See id.) However, conductor Simpson discovered a problem with the air brake hose on Railcar CSXT 180589, one of the original 11 railcars from the Flat Rock Yard. (See id. at 63, PageID.285.) The air hose is a part that "allows the air to run through the train from the locomotive through the cars to allow the train to brake, applybrakes, [and] release [the] brakes. [I]t's essential to the air brake system throughout the train." (Macki Dep. at 19, ECF No. 22-5, PageID.538.) Without a working air hose and air brake, the train would not be able to move. (See Nelson Dep. at 62, 101, ECF 22-3, PageID.284, 323.)

Simpson determined that the air hose was "broken" and needed to be replaced. (Simpson Statement, ECF No. 22-8, PageID.675; Macki Dep. at 15, ECF No. 22-5, PageID.534; See also Nelson Dep. at 67, ECF No. 22-3, PageID.289, describing the "broken" air hose as "defective").² Simpson then radioed Nelson and asked Nelson to bring him a wrench and a replacement air hose. (See Nelson Dep. at 65-66, ECF No. 22-3, PageID.287-288.) Nelson "g[o]t the air hose and the wrench ... and [] walked down and gave [them] to [Simpson]." (Id. at 66, PageID.288.) Simpson tried to remove the defective air hose from the railcar, but he could not get the hose to budge. (See id. at 76, PageID.298.)

Nelson then tried to remove the air hose. (See id.) Nelson "squatted down" and tugged on the hose to "see if it would move," but it did not. (Id. at 78, PageID.300.) When Nelson tried to remove the hose, he felt "a pain" in his back and "then when [he] stood up [he] had a whole lot of pain" in his back. (Id. at 79, PageID.301.) Nelson said the pain felt like "someone was literally stabbing [him] in the back and turning [it]." (Id. at 80, PageID.302.)

Because Simpson and Nelson were unable remove the defective air hose, Simpson called for a "carman" to assist. (Id. at 81, 90, PageID.303, 312.) A carman was dispatched to Control Point Rodney and removed the defective air hose with a blowtorch. (See id. at 81-83, PageID.303-305.) The carman then replaced the defective air hose. (See id. at 99, PageID.321.) Train L57361 thereafter left Control Point Rodney with its 21 railcars (the original 11 from Flat Rock and the additional 10 that it picked up at Control Point Rodney) and headed toward its final destination at Ford Yard. (See id. at 97-98, PageID.319-320.) Once the train arrived at Ford Yard, Nelson exited the train and was taken to a nearby hospital for evaluation. (See id. at 101, PageID.323.) Nelson says that a result of the injury he suffered on January 11, he continues to suffer from serious and debilitating back pain.

II

Nelson filed this action against Grand Trunk on October 31, 2018. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) He thereafter filed an Amended Complaint. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 9.) In the Amended Complaint, Nelson seeks damages "pursuant to the provisions of" FELA. (Id. at ¶1, PageID.29.) And he alleges that Grand Trunk is liable under FELA because, among other things, Grand Trunk violated the FSAA.³ (See id. at PageID.31.)

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on February 27 and February 28, 2020. (See Grand Trunk Mot., ECF No. 20; Nelson Mot., ECF No. 21.) Nelson alsofiled a motion to exclude the expert testimony of several of Grand Trunk employees on the basis that Grand Trunk failed to properly disclose the employees as experts. (See Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 23.) The Court held a hearing on the summary judgment motions on June 17, 2020, and the Court concludes that it may resolve the motion in limine without a hearing. See E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).

III

A movant is entitled to summary judgment when it "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact." SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Servs., Inc., 712 F.3d 321, 326-27 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). When reviewing the record, "the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor." Id. (quoting Tysinger v. Police Dep't of City of Zanesville, 463 F.3d 569, 572 (6th Cir. 2006)). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for [that party]." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Summary judgment is not appropriate when "the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury." Id. at 251-52. Indeed, "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drafting of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Id. at 255.

IV

A

The FELA is "a remedial and humanitarian statute ... enacted by Congress to afford relief to employees from injury incurred in the railway industry." Hardyman v. Norfolk &Western Railway Co., 243 F.3d 255, 258 (6th Cir. 2001). In relevant part, the FELA provides that:

Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce ... shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce ... for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment.

45 U.S.C. § 51. "In order to present a prima facie case under FELA, [a Grand Trunk employee] must prove that: (1) he was injured within the scope of his employment; (2) his employment was in furtherance of Grand Trunk's interstate transportation business; (3) that Grand Trunk was negligent; and (4) that Grand Trunk's negligence played some part in causing the injury for which he seeks compensation under FELA." Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 269 (6th Cir. 2007).

The first two elements of Nelson's FELA claim are not disputed in the cross-motions for summary judgment. The only elements at issue in those...