Prentice v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-cv-05856-MEJ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | NANCY PRENTICE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
Re: Dkt. No. 51
Pending before the Court is Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation's ("Amtrak") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Second Cause of Action for Gross Negligence and accompanying prayer for Punitive Damages. Having considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Amtrak's Motion for the reasons set forth below.
On October 12, 2011, Amtrak Certified Engineer Timothy Levake failed to stop Amtrak Train No. 717 at a stop indication (red signal) and collided with the lead locomotive of Train No. 14, which was unloading passengers at the Oakland Amtrak Station. Def.'s Stmt. Undisputed Mat. Facts ("Def. Stmt.") No. 1, Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiffs Nancy Prentice and Colin Haughin ("Plaintiffs") suffered injuries as a result of the collision. Sec. Am. Compl. ("SAC") ¶ 27.
After the collision, in accordance with Amtrak policy and federal regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. § 240.307, Amtrak removed Levake from service and suspended his locomotiveengineer certification pending a formal investigation into charges that he failed to comply with several rules and requirements in connection with the accident. Def. Stmt. No. 2. On November 16, 2011, after a formal investigation, Amtrak revoked Levake's engineer certification and terminated his employment. Id. Amtrak admitted negligence with respect to the accident, but denied that it was grossly negligent in certifying and retaining Levake as an engineer. Answer ¶¶ 18-25, Dkt. No. 40.
Levake began his employment with Amtrak in August of 2003 as a conductor trainee and was promoted to conductor in 2004 after successful completion of his training program. Def. Stmt. No. 3. Levake entered the locomotive engineer training program in April of 2005. Id. After fulfilling all of the program's requirements, Levake was promoted and certified as a train service locomotive engineer on August 17, 2006. Id.
At the time of Levake's employment, Amtrak had a written program for the certification and recertification of locomotive engineers that conformed with the criteria set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 240, and was deemed approved by the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA"). Id., No. 4. Amtrak's engineer certification program included classroom training and testing, on the job training, performance testing, field efficiency tests by supervisors to monitor engineers for ongoing rules compliance, and provisions for specific sanctions in the event of certain rules infractions, among others. Id., No. 5.
Levake's entire training from April 2005 until he was promoted and received his engineer certification in August 2006, including the training, evaluation, monitoring, testing, supervision, and discipline, was in compliance with Amtrak's FRA-approved policy and program which contained the criteria set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 240. Id., No. 6. When Levake received his engineer certificate, he was fully qualified to be a locomotive engineer under Amtrak's own program and polices, which contain all of the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 240. Id., No. 7.
It is customary and expected for Amtrak student engineers to receive criticism and commentary during the training program, as it is during this time that they acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for promotion and certification. Id., No. 8. For this reason, Amtrak's trainingprogram considers the progress student engineers make over the course of their training when determining whether a student engineer is qualified for promotion. Id. Throughout the training process, supervisors track the student engineer's progress, evaluations, and test results. Id. Amtrak will not promote or certify a student engineer until the student demonstrates through evaluations, tests, and reports that he or she has made consistent progress, and is scoring highly. Id., No. 9. Amtrak will not promote and certify a student engineer until the student engineer's supervisors and the Amtrak System General Road Foreman's Office in Wilmington, Delaware have reviewed the student's progress and approved the promotion and certification. Id.
Amtrak maintains operating rules and has implemented programs to ensure that its employees are instructed and tested periodically on the operating rules in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 217.1 Amtrak's program includes training, instruction, operational testing, and inspections to ensure compliance with its code of operating rules, timetables, and timetable special instructions. Id., No. 14. Supervisors are specifically instructed on how to conduct tests, inspections, and instruct engineers on compliance with the operating rules, in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 217. Id.
Over the course of Levake's16-month student engineer training, he received numerous student engineer evaluations, tests and Efficiency T.E.S.T.S. reports, which improved over the course of his training. Id., No. 10. When Levake was certified in August 2006 after completing the training program, he demonstrated that he was fully qualified for promotion to certified locomotive engineer. Id., No. 11. Levake successfully passed all required examinations and demonstrated his proficiency in applied skills performance tests to safely perform all required duties of a certified locomotive engineer. Id. Once certified, Levake received all of the continuing or recurring training for recertification required by Amtrak's program and policy. Id. No. 12. This included classroom training and testing, on-the-job training, performance testing, and regular field efficiency test by supervisors to monitor for ongoing rules compliance while Levake operated trains. Id.
In November of 2006, five years prior to this incident, Levake failed to stop his train before passing a stop indication on the BNSF Railway. Id., No. 13. For that incident, Amtrak suspended Levake for 30 days, revoked his engineer's certificate in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 240.117(g)(3)(i)2, and assigned Levake a minimum of five days of remedial training. Id.
Subject to dispute are a number of additional facts Plaintiffs submit based on the declaration of railroad expert Colon Fulk. Pls.' Add'l Fact. Stmt., Dkt. No. 61. According to Fulk, Amtrak knew Levake was not qualified to operate as an engineer. Id., No. 1, 6. Levake should not have been promoted and certified based upon his performance in the engineer training program. Id., No. 2. It is not the custom and practice of the industry for a student engineer to receive the type of negative evaluations given to Engineer Levake. Id., No. 3. Amtrak personnel improperly evaluated Levake's qualifications to actually run a locomotive, as evidenced by the incident in which Levake ran a stop indication in November 2006. Id., No. 4. When taking into account Amtrak's safety obligation under the General Code of Operating Rules ("GCOR"), coupled with Levake's poor performance review, he should have been relieved of his duties as an engineer after the November 2006 stop indication incident. Id., No. 5. Amtrak's failure to takepro-active measures after the negative evaluations and the stop signal incident in November 2006, namely the constant monitoring of Levake to ensure rule compliance, resulted in Amtrak's resorting to re-active measures after the incident causing injury to 17 people. Id., No. 7. Amtrak's handling of Levake's poor knowledge and skill performance was not the custom and practice normally used in the rail industry. Id., No. 8. Moreover, Amtrak did not place safety as their most important element in performing its duties, and were knowingly careless of the safety of others. Id., No. 14, 16.
Plaintiffs allege that Amtrak violated federal safety rules by failing to display blue signals, which must be displayed when workers are on, under, or between a train. SAC ¶ 21 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 218.5). However, at the time of the October 12, 2011 accident, there were no workmen on, under, or between rolling equipment which would require the Railroad to display a blue signal or blue flag in accordance with the applicable federal regulations.3 Def. Stmt. No. 15.
Plaintiffs initiated this action on November 15, 2012 by filing a Complaint against Amtrak, alleging one cause of action for negligence. Dkt. No. 1. On December 13, 2012, Amtrak filed an Answer, in which it admits negligence. Dkt. No. 4. On May 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint asserting a new cause of action for gross negligence against Amtrak and adding Union Pacific Rail Road as a defendant. Dkt. No. 20. Amtrak filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Plaintiffs' gross negligence claims were preempted by federal law. Dkt. No. 25. However, Plaintiffs subsequently filed their SAC on July 17, 2013, alleging gross negligence in addition to the original negligence claim, and including a prayer for punitive damages. Dkt. No.31. On August 8, 2013, Amtrak filed an Answer to the SAC, in which it again admitted negligence but denied gross negligence. Dkt. No. 40.
On June 6, 2014, Amtrak filed the present Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the gross negligence claim. Dkt. No. 51. In its Motion, Amtrak argues that Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal law, and that the undisputed evidence establishes that Amtrak complied with all federal regulations regarding training, evaluating, monitoring, testing, discipline, and certification of Engineer Levake. Mot. at 7.
Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on June 26, 2014 (Dkt. No. 59), to which Amtrak filed a Reply on July 3, 2014 (Dkt. No. 64). On July 23, 2014, the Court found...
To continue reading
Request your trial