Nowicki v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-6209 (PKC) (PK) |
| Citation | 594 F.Supp.3d 549 |
| Parties | Adam NOWICKI, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Marc Wietzke, Sean P. Constable, Marc Twyman Wietzke, Flynn & Wietzke, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Plaintiff.
Sophia Ree, Rachel J. Hong, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York, NY, Elizabeth Rackley DeSalvo, Shapiro, Croland, Reiser, Apfel & Di Iorio LLP, Hacksensack, NJ, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Adam Nowicki brings this personal injury action pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. , and the Boiler Inspection Act, commonly known as the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701, alleging that during the course of his employment with Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corp. ("Amtrak"), he suffered significant injuries while attempting to lift a handle to seal an airtight door. Defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56. For the reasons explained below, Defendant's motion is denied.
Prior to his injury in December 2016, Plaintiff had worked as a locomotive engineer since March 1978, and for Amtrak since April 1984. (Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement in Support of Summary Judgment ("Def. 56.1"), Dkt. 39, ¶ 1–2; Plaintiff's 56.1(b) Statement in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl. 56.1"), Dkt. 42, ¶ 1–2; Deposition of Adam Nowicki ("Tr.") 31:7–15.1 ) As a locomotive engineer, Plaintiff would inspect the locomotive of empty trains after they were cleaned and serviced in Sunnyside Yards, and then take them to Penn Station, where passengers would board. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 39, ¶ 4; Def. 56.1, Dkt. 42, ¶ 4; Tr. 32:24–33:6, 34:17–18.) As part of his inspection, Plaintiff would walk through the train's aisleways, check seals, inspect the rear operating cab, then walk back through the aisle to the operating cab, and close and seal the door between the operating cab and the locomotive engine room (the "fire door"). (Tr. 68:19–25, 90:11–91:15.)
In approximately 2015, a new type of locomotive, known as model ACS64, was placed into service. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 39, ¶ 5; Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 42, ¶ 41; Deposition of Steven A. Smalls ("Smalls Tr."), Dkt. 38-7, 18:7–11.) The ACS64 locomotives had a different type of latching mechanism on their fire doors than any other locomotives. (Tr. 43:9–23.) To close and seal these doors, engineers had to lift up the handle halfway to close the door, then lift it up further to seal it. (Id. 78:14–79:19, 81:8–18.) Plaintiff never received training on how to properly close and seal these doors. (Id. 83:3–25.) As soon as the ACS64s were placed into service, Plaintiff and other engineers began to complain amongst themselves about difficulty latching the doors. (Id. 44:4–23, 95:2–16.) Plaintiff's understanding was that one of his union representatives had reported the complaints to Amtrak. (Id. 95:2–16.) In addition, prior to Plaintiff's injury, a Trainmaster named Steven Smalls overheard engineers complaining about the ACS64's fire door, as discussed in greater detail below. (Smalls Tr., Dkt. 38-7, 25:3–25.)
On December 31, 2016, Plaintiff boarded and inspected Locomotive # 640, a model ACS64. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 39, ¶¶ 17–18.) After checking the aisleway, inspecting the non-operating cab, and returning to the operating cab, Plaintiff attempted to close and seal the fire door. (Tr. 71:9–12.) According to Plaintiff, on that day, the fire door handle on Locomotive # 640 was even more difficult to operate than the handles on ACS64s normally were, because it was extra stiff and difficult to close. (Tr. 92:3–18.) While lifting the handle to seal the door, Plaintiff felt a pain in his back and later in his inguinal region, i.e. , his groin. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 39, ¶ 22; Tr. 90:11–91:15.) When Locomotive # 640 arrived at Penn Station, Plaintiff reported his injury to Trainmaster Smalls. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 39, ¶ 25; Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 42, ¶ 25.) Plaintiff then went to the restroom, identified a small lump on his inguinal area, and was taken to the hospital. (Tr. 91:11-15, 104:18–23.) According to Plaintiff, as a result of the incident, he suffered an inguinal hernia
, a herniated disk, and sciatica. (Id. 107:11–18, 117:2–23, 129:12–15, 136:15–21.) As a result of his injuries, he could no longer work, and his employment with Amtrak ended on October 2, 2017. (Id. 30:22–31:18, 197:5–198:6, 201:20–25, 205:19–206:5.)
Defendant has submitted reports, which Plaintiff does not contest, indicating that inspection records from two days prior to the incident, the day of the incident, and three days after the incident do not indicate any issues related to the fire door or door handle involved in Plaintiff's accident, and that Amtrak had no records related to any defects or servicing of the door on Locomotive # 640. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 39, ¶¶ 30, 32–33; Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 42, ¶¶ 30, 32–33.) No search was made, however, for complaints of fire door handles on other ACS64 locomotives. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 42, ¶ 30.)
As part of discovery in this case, Trainmaster Smalls was deposed. (Smalls Tr., Dkt. 38-7.) Smalls testified that, as part of his employment, he was responsible for "address[ing] all problems and concerns for employees, trains." (Id. 9:13–21.) He stated that, "whatever problem comes along, I have to deal with it and then push them -- push the problem to wherever they need to go." (Id. 10:14–17.) In that same vein, Smalls testified that his job was to report problems to his supervisors, including mechanical problems, but that when he reported such problems to his supervisors, he generated no reports. (Id. 13:23–15:13.) In addition, prior to Plaintiff's injury, Smalls testified that he had heard engineers complain about the fire door handles on the ACS64 locomotives. (Id. 25:3–27:5.) As Smalls described it, these engineers did not make a formal complaint, but he overheard the engineers, in effect, making complaints about the ACS64 fire door handles as the engineers stood around talking to each other. (Id. ) Smalls was not aware of Defendant ever taking any action to address the concerns raised by the engineers.2 (Id. 27:6–14.)
Summary judgment is appropriate where the submissions of the parties, taken together, "show[ ] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (). "A fact is material if it ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’ " Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC , 13 F.4th 247, 259 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ). "To present a ‘genuine’ issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the record must contain contradictory evidence ‘such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ " Horror Inc. v. Miller , 15 F.4th 232, 241 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ).
"The moving party bears the burden to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact ...." Smith v. Barnesandnoble.com, LLC , 839 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir. 2016). Once this burden is met, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to proffer some evidence establishing the existence of a question of material fact that must be resolved at trial. See Spinelli v. City of New York , 579 F.3d 160, 166–67 (2d Cir. 2009) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A mere "scintilla of evidence" in support of the nonmoving party is insufficient; "there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the non-movant." Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y. , 352 F.3d 733, 743 (2d Cir. 2003). That is, "[t]he nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Caldarola v. Calabrese , 298 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2002).
"[A]t the summary judgment stage, the district court is not permitted to make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence ...." Kee v. City of New York , 12 F.4th 150, 166 (2d Cir. 2021). It must "consider the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant" and "resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the non-movant ‘if there is a "genuine" dispute as to those facts.’ " Loreley , 13 F.4th at 259 (quoting Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) ). "[T]he district court may not properly consider the record in piecemeal fashion; rather, it must ‘review all of the evidence in the record.’ " S. Katzman Produce Inc. v. Yadid , 999 F.3d 867, 877 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) ).
45 U.S.C. § 51. FELA is "a broad remedial statute whose objective is to provide a federal remedy for railroad workers who suffer personal injuries as a result of the negligence of their employer" and "is to be liberally construed to achieve that objective." Greene v. Long Island R.R. , 280 F.3d 224, 229 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial