Nna v. American Standard, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 06-cv-11950-DPW. |
| Citation | 630 F.Supp.2d 115 |
| Parties | Glory N. NNA, Administratrix of the Estate of Hillary Obioma Nna, Michael P. Mason, Jory S. Mason, and Peter W. Lee, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Neil Sugarman, Gabriel Thomas Pauling, Sugarman & Sugarman, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.
Maura K. Monaghan, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY, A. Bernard Guekguezian, Deirdre Kirby Lydon, Gabriel W. Bell, Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs Glory N. Nna (Administratrix of the Estate of Hillary Obioma Nna ("Nna")), Michael P. Mason ("Mason"), Jory S. Mason, and Peter W. Lee ("Lee") pursue this diversity action against Defendant American Standard, Inc. ("ASI")1 for negligence, gross negligence and breach of warranty.2 The case centers around a tragic accident on the night of January 27, 2005, when a rapid transit train struck three Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ("MBTA") employees—Nna, Mason, and Lee—as they were working to clear ice from a switch. Nna was killed as a result of the collision; Mason and Lee suffered serious physical injuries. According to Plaintiffs, the proximate cause of the accident was the failure of the train's horn to sound properly in the moments before the collision; this failure, they contend, resulted from the accumulation of snow and ice in the horn's bell. Plaintiffs allege that ASI, which designed and manufactured the horn, should have equipped the horn with a protective cover or at least warned the MBTA about the dangers of using it in a cold and snowy environment. ASI has moved for summary judgment on grounds that: (1) the MBTA was a "sophisticated user" of the subject horn, thereby relieving ASI of any liability; (2) the MBTA's "extraordinary negligence" was a supervening cause of the accident; and (3) the Plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence of causation, primarily because the proposed testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses as to causation is inadmissible.3 For the reasons discussed below, I will deny ASI's summary judgment motion.
Plaintiff Glory N. Nna is the administratrix of the estate of her late husband, the MBTA worker killed in the January 27, 2005 accident. Plaintiffs Mason and Lee were the other two MBTA workers involved in the accident. Plaintiff Jory S. Mason is the wife of Plaintiff Mason. All of the Plaintiffs are Massachusetts residents.
Defendant ASI is a non-Massachusetts corporation based in New Jersey. ASI designed and manufactured the horn that failed to sound properly before the train struck the three MBTA workers.
Around 6:40 p.m. on the night of January 27, 2005, MBTA Signal Inspector Joseph Stover telephoned Mary Dacey, the MBTA Dispatcher for the Orange Line, requesting permission for a work crew to enter the right of way to clear snow and ice from Switch 83.5 Switch 83 is located adjacent to Wellington Station, and it is used to reroute trains in need of service from the main tracks into the Wellington train yard for maintenance. The switch had become inoperable because of the difficult weather conditions. Although it was not snowing that evening, there were approximately eighteen inches of snow on the ground, and it was extremely cold.
Dacey at first denied the request, asking Stover if the crew could wait half an hour. Dacey hoped the extra time would ease the rush hour delays on the Orange Line, caused by a combination of bad weather, signal problems and disabled trains. There was subsequently a miscommunication between Dacey and her supervisor, Deon Stubbs, regarding Stover's request. According to Dacey, Stubbs-the manager of the MBTA Operations and Control Center-overruled her decision and told her she must let the work crew go out to Switch 83. According to Stubbs, he only told Dacey to grant permission for the crew to "throw" the switch by sending an electrical signal from the tower, not for the crew to actually go out on the right of way. In any event, when Stover called Dacey a second time, she granted his request and made an announcement to all motormen and train attendants that a work crew was heading out to Switch 83. Over the next ten minutes, between 6:50 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Dacey made three additional announcements warning trains to use caution near Switch 83.
The three-man work crew that went out to clean Switch 83 consisted of Nna, a Signal Engineer, and Mason and Lee, both Maintenance Improvement Workers.6 The MBTA Right of Way Safe Practices manual requires a work crew of two or more persons to designate a flagperson, equipped with a set of flags and an airhorn, whose "main responsibility is to continually watch for oncoming vehicles and notify the crew immediately of an oncoming vehicle." According to interviews with both Lee and Mason during the MBTA's investigation of the accident, Nna was acting as the flagperson for the crew, watching for trains as the other two worked on the switch. Lee indicated that none of the workers actually had flags with them because it was nighttime, and he was unsure whether any of them had an airhorn. The MBTA Safety Department Final Report found that both Nna and Lee were wearing orange high visibility safety vests, although it was unclear whether Mason was wearing a similar style vest.
The train that struck Nna, Mason, and Lee was operated by motorman Daniel MacKay.7 Although the train's radio was functioning properly on the night of the accident, MacKay said he did not hear any of the four radio announcements warning of the work crew's presence at Switch 83. According to MacKay, he was not actually on the train for three or four of the announcements because he was engaged in a series of "crew swaps" with other train crews during that time.8 MacKay also suggested that one of the announcements may have occurred while his train was beneath an underpass where it did not receive radio reception.
The MBTA Safety Department Final Report suggested two other factors that may have caused MacKay to be "inattentive" on the night of the accident: (1) MacKay had a book with him in the train cab, which was found on the front windshield after the accident; and (2) MacKay had been taking an anti-insomnia medication which had the potential to cause drowsiness. MacKay acknowledged that he had a book with him in the cab but insisted he was not reading it while operating the vehicle; rather, he said he kept the book in his coat sleeve and threw it onto the windshield while putting on his coat to leave the cab after the accident. MacKay also acknowledged that he had taken his sleep-aid medication the night before the accident, but said he did not take it again after waking up that morning.
MBTA regulations mandate that trains approaching areas with active work crews must reduce their speeds to ten miles per hour. Because MacKay did not hear the radio announcements warning of the work crew's presence at Switch 83, however, he maintained a speed of approximately forty miles per hour—the maximum speed for an MBTA rapid transit train—as he approached Wellington Station. MacKay was unable to recall whether or not his train's headlights were on at this time. Although it was not snowing, MacKay recalled that there was a lot of snow "swirling around" because another train had recently passed him in the opposite direction.
MacKay's first indication of the work crew's presence came after his train passed a bridge abutment on a long curved portion of the track approaching Wellington Station, when he spotted the corner of an orange safety vest. According to Mac-Kay, "As soon as I saw the corner of the safety vest, I threw the train into emergency, and I jumped out of my seat while throwing it into emergency, and immediately leaned on the horn." When the horn failed to sound, MacKay tried to push it a second time, but again it made no sound. Shortly thereafter, MacKay's train struck the three workers on the track.9
There is conflicting evidence regarding the positions and reactions of the work crew members as MacKay's train approached. According to MacKay:
I saw three signal maintainers. They all had their backs to me. One was on his knees in the middle of the right-of-way. The other two were straddling a rail to his left and right. They never heard me coming until I was probably six or eight feet away. And they turned, looked at me, and I hit them.
The MBTA Safety Department Final Report concluded, based on a radio message by Lee prior to the accident and physical evidence at the scene, that the worker MacKay saw kneeling in the tracks was Nna. Lee, in his interview for the MBTA investigation, indicated that moments before the accident he was standing in the tracks chipping ice while Mason stood outside the gauge clearing snow. According to Lee, Nna was standing ten to fifteen feet behind the other two men, watching for trains. When Lee heard Nna yell, he looked back to see Nna jump up and get struck by the train. Mason, in his interview, echoed Lee's account that Lee was in the middle of the tracks while Mason was off to the side. Mason, however, was unsure as to Nna's position at the time of the collision.
When emergency personnel arrived after the accident, Nna was pronounced dead at the scene and Mason and Lee were transported to the hospital. The MBTA Night Supervisor checked the train's horn at the accident's location to see whether it worked, and found that the horn made only an audible clicking sound. Photographs from the accident scene reveal that snow and ice had accumulated in the horn's bell. When the horn was later tested again at a maintenance building, it operated properly.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Damon v. Hukowicz
...the police report are inadmissible hearsay and, therefore, should not be included in the undisputed facts. See Nna v. American Standard, Inc., 630 F.Supp.2d 115, 125 (D.Mass.2009) (“It is well established that entries in a police report which result from the officer's own observations and k......
-
M.B. v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...0.27 of a second. Moreover, the Court does not believe that Mr. Bellizzi is qualified to render such an opinion. In Nna v. Am. Standard, Inc., 630 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.Mass.2009), the court dealt with a strikingly similar issue regarding whether two experts, a licensed engineer who was also an ......
-
Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Grp., Inc.
...the warnings would have altered the behavior of users like Milward (or his employers) and prevented injury. Nna v. Am. Standard, Inc., 630 F.Supp.2d 115, 130 (D.Mass.2009) (“The question of whether a risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable is ordinarily a matter for the jury.”).V. CONCLUSIO......
-
The Capability Group Inc v. Am. Express Travel Related Serv. Co. Inc
...the evidence presented is such that a jury ‘could reasonably find for either the plaintiff or the defendant.’ ” Nna v. Am. Standard, Inc., 630 F.Supp.2d 115, 124 (D.Mass.2009) Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505). III. DISCUSSION New York law applies to this case because, pursuan......
-
Governmental documents
...22. 11 D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police , 878 A.2d 133 (Pa.Super., 2005). See also §21.300 et seq. Nna v. American Standard, Inc. , 630 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.Mass., 2009). The mere fact that third party statements appear in an otherwise admissible public report does not indicate that the stateme......
-
Governmental Documents
...8 D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police , 878 A.2d 133 (Pa.Super., 2005). See also §21.300 et seq. Nna v. American Standard, Inc. , 630 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.Mass., 2009). The mere fact that third party statements appear in an otherwise admissible public report does not indicate that the statements t......
-
Governmental Documents
...10 D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police , 878 A.2d 133 (Pa.Super., 2005). See also §21.300 et seq. Nna v. American Standard, Inc. , 630 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.Mass., 2009). The mere fact that third party statements appear in an otherwise admissible public report does not indicate that the statements ......
-
Governmental Documents
...8 D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police , 878 A.2d 133 (Pa.Super., 2005). See also §21.300 et seq. Nna v. American Standard, Inc. , 630 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.Mass., 2009). The mere fact that third party statements appear in an otherwise admissible public report does not indicate that the statements t......