Rhinehart v. CSX Transp., Inc., 10-CV-86(LJV)(LGF)
| Decision Date | 16 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | 10-CV-86(LJV)(LGF) |
| Parties | ALFRED R. RHINEHART, JR., Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
The plaintiff, Alfred R. Rhinehart, Jr., sued CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSX"), after his legs were severed when he was struck by a train while on CSX property. The defendant moved for summary judgment and to strike the plaintiff's expert report, and Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended that the motion for summary judgment be denied and that the motion to strike the expert report be granted in part and denied in part.1 See Docket Item 98. For the reasons stated below and in the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"), this Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's expert report.
The following facts are drawn from the pleadings and motion papers filed in this action. On September 11, 2009, Rhinehart was walking to a bar located on Military Road near Amherst Street in Buffalo, New York. Rather than walk out of his way down to Elmwood Avenue, Rhinehart decided to take a "cut-through" over train tracks on land owned and operated by CSX, a transportation company that operates the railroad. But a coal train operating on CSX property was stopped on the tracks and blocked the path Rhinehart intended to take. Rhinehart waited several minutes to see whether the train would move; when it did not, he began to climb over the standing train to cross the tracks. Rhinehart maintains that he previously had done the same on stopped trains when they blocked the cut-through. He said he did that to shorten his commute and to avoid a nearby underpass where he once had been mugged.
While Rhinehart was climbing over the rail car, the train started to move, jerking forward and causing him to fall. Rhinehart hung on to the car and his body was dragged some distance before he let go. Following the accident, Rhinehart told emergency responders that he had been drinking alcohol, and the responders smelled alcohol on Rhinehart's breath.
Because his legs were severed by the moving train, Rhinehart now relies on a wheelchair and prosthetics to get around.
Rhinehart commenced this action on December 29, 2009, in New York State Supreme Court (Erie County), the jurisdiction in which he was injured on September 11, 2009. CSX removed the action to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on February 3, 2010. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
The case initially was assigned to United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara, who referred it to Magistrate Judge Foschio. Docket Item 5; see supra note 1. Pretrial discovery continued until June 19, 2013, when the parties agreed that fact discovery was complete. Docket Item 83. CSX then filed its motion for summary judgment and motion to strike on April 15, 2014. Docket Item 92. On May 30, 2014, Rhinehart responded to the motions, Docket Item 96, and on June 13, 2014, CSX replied, Docket Item 97.
Judge Foschio issued his R&R on November 18, 2015, see Docket Item 98, and the case was transferred from Judge Arcara to the undersigned on December 4, 2015, Docket Item 101. CSX submitted its objections to the R&R on January 8, 2016, Docket Item 106; Rhinehart responded on March 8, 2016, Docket Item 109; he amended his response on March 9, 2016, Docket Item 110; and CSX replied on April 11, 2016, Docket Item 113. This Court heard oral argument on the objections to the R&R on April 25, 2016, and reserved decision. Docket Item 115. In May 2016, the parties filed supplemental briefs regarding the preemption issue that was first addressed with any depth in the objections. Docket Items 116-18.
When a magistrate judge issues a Report and Recommendation on a dispositive motion, the court "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to" and "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
To the extent that a party appeals a magistrate judge's decision on non-dispositive matters, the district court "may reconsider" the decision only "where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
A court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 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). The movant—that is, the party seeking summary judgment—has the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). It may satisfy this burden by relying on evidence in the record, "including depositions, documents, . . . [and] affidavits," Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), or by "point[ing] to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim." Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Once the movant has satisfied its initial burden, "the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts" showing that there is a genuine dispute of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A genuine dispute of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "[T]he court must view the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" and must draw "all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 466 (2d Cir. 2001). But "conclusory statements, conjecture, or speculation by the party resisting the motion will not defeat summary judgment." Kulak v. City of N.Y., 88 F.3d 63, 71 (2d Cir. 1996).
In a diversity case such as this, the Court applies the substantive law of the state whose law would apply under choice-of-law rules—here, New York State. See, e.g., Lee v. Bankers Trust Co., 166 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 1999).2
The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by the framework in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1994). In that case, the Supreme Court directed trial courts to apply Fed. R. Evid. 702 so that "any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable." Id. at 589.
Under Daubert, courts assess admissibility by determining whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. Id. at 592-93. This analysis includes several factors, such as whether the proposed expert methodology "has been a subject of peer review or publication, the known or potential rate of error, and the degree of acceptance . . . within the relevant scientific community." Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 145 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the analysis reveals that "an expert opinion is based on data, a methodology, or studies that are simply inadequate to support the conclusions reached, Daubert and Rule 702 mandate the exclusion of that unreliable opinion testimony." Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 396-97 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 266 (2d Cir. 2002)). Finally, an expert "may not give testimony stating ultimate legal conclusions based on . . . facts." United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294 (2d Cir. 1991).
Rhinehart has brought a negligence claim against CSX. To prove negligence under New York law, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the existence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) injury to the plaintiff proximately resulting from the defendant's breach of the duty. See Greenberg, Trager, Herbst, LLP v. HSBC Bank USA, 17 N.Y.3d 565, 576, 958 N.E.2d 77, 82 (2011).
In its motion for summary judgment, CSX contended that the complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law because it had no duty to fence or erect barriers around the tracks and did not breach any duty to warn. Docket Item 92-21 at 5. CSX also argued that Rhinehart's knowing trespass—onto the property and the train, at night and while inebriated—was "reckless behavior" constituting the sole or superseding proximate cause of his injuries. Id. In its objections to the R&R, CSX further argued that the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (the "FRSA") either expressly or impliedly preempts "any common-law duty to implement preventative measures—whether to warn, to erect fencing, or to uncouple cars." Docket Item 106 at 9-10. And it also argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (the "ICCTA") "expressly preempts Rhinehart's fencing and uncoupling theories." Id. at 19.
Rhinehart responded by arguing that CSX had breached its duty of reasonable care to protect the public from dangerous conditions existing on its property. Docket Item 110 at 7-8. With respect to preemption, Rhinehart asserted that CSX misapprehends his argument, which is that CSX had a duty to exercise reasonable care that "may be measured by [CSX's] own operating rules such that a violation of [CSX's] internal rules . . . is some evidence of negligence." Id. at 14, 19 (emphasis added).
Determining negligence requires first deciding whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial