Roth v. I & M Rail Link, L.L.C.

• Decision Date: 12 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. 3-00-CV-10053.,3-00-CV-10053.
• Citation: 179 F.Supp.2d 1054
• Parties: Helen ROTH, Administrator of the Estate of Arnold Roth, Plaintiff, v. I & M RAIL LINK, L.L.C.; Union Pacific Railroad Co.; Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Co.; General Electric Company; and General Electric Transportation Systems Company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

179 F.Supp.2d 1054

Helen ROTH, Administrator of the Estate of Arnold Roth, Plaintiff, v. I & M RAIL LINK, L.L.C.; Union Pacific Railroad Co.; Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Co.; General Electric Company; and General Electric Transportation Systems Company, Defendants.

No. 3-00-CV-10053.

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Davenport Division.

October 12, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

George T. Brugess, Daniel J. Downes, J. Dillon Hoey, James Louis Farina, Richard A. Haydu, Robert J. Drummond, James T. Foley, John M. Dugan, Hoey Farina & Downes, Chicago, IL, for Helen Roth.

David B. Potter, Jennifer K. Eggers, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Bruce E. Johnson, Lewis Webster Johnson Van Winkle & Devolder, Des Moines, IA, for I & M Rail Link LLC.

Bruce E. Johnson, Lewis Webster Johnson Van Winkle & Devolder, Des Moines, IA, for Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern Railroad Co.

David B. Potter, Jennifer K. Eggers, Bliss A. Baldwin, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Daniel P. Kitchen, Tindal & Kitchen, Washington, IA, for General Electric, General Electric Transportation Systems Co.

ORDER

LONGSTAFF, Chief Judge.

Before the Court now is defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Clerk's No. 43), filed on July 1, 2001, by General Electric Company and General Electric Transportation System (collectively, G.E.). Plaintiff, Helen Roth (Roth), filed her response on August 31, 2001. G.E., construing an argument in Roth's response as a discovery motion, filed a resistance to the discovery motion on September 14, 2001, and filed a reply brief concerning the motion for summary judgment on September 17, 2001. Oral argument has been requested, but found unnecessary. The motion is fully submitted.

I. BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are either undisputed or viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

On August 11, 1999, Arnold Roth was working for Defendant I & M Rail Link (I & M) as a conductor in Clinton, Iowa. A train owned by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad (UP) approached Clinton, traveling west. Under a detour agreement between UP and I & M, the train was to pass through I & M's Clinton railroad yard.

At approximately 4 p.m., Arnold Roth and Carl Finzel, an I & M locomotive engineer, met the UP crew at the junction of the I & M and UP tracks, boarded the lead locomotive of the UP train, and proceeded toward the Clinton railroad yard. G.E. manufactured the lead locomotive, UP 9777, in 1994.

At approximately 4:10 p.m., the UP train, while traveling approximately 16.5 miles per hour, collided with an empty tank car at the rear of a stopped freight train. (Pl.'s Ex. 3 at 27.) The empty tank weighed approximately 55,000 to 65,000 pounds. (Pl.'s Ex. 3 at 28.)

Federal regulations promulgated under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. §§ 20701-20903 (1997), require crashworthy features in certain locomotives to prevent the cab from collapsing in a collision. See 49 C.F.R. § 229.141. Roth contends that G.E.'s strategy of compliance with section 229.141 included collision posts that could withstand an override by another locomotive engine weighing 350,000 pounds at a moderate speed. (Pl.'s Ex. 3 at 75.) Regulations define collision posts as, "structural members of the end structures of a vehicle that extend vertically from the underframe to which they are securely attached and that provide protection to occupied compartments from an object penetrating the vehicle during a collision." 49 C.F.R. § 235.5.

Roth's expert, William Bogett, testified that at impact the tank hit the collision post on the engineer side of the locomotive's cab, the collision post weld failed at the deck, and the tank car crushed the cab, killing both Arnold Roth and Finzel. (Pl.'s Ex. 3 at 48.)

Arnold Roth's widow, Plaintiff Helen Roth, filed her complaint in this Court on April 20, 2000. In Counts VI through IX of her complaint, Roth asserts state-law negligence claims. Specifically, she claims that G.E. negligently designed and manufactured the locomotive at issue, failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions with the locomotive, failed to design and manufacture its locomotive to withstand reasonably foreseeable collisions, failed to investigate and test its locomotive for crashworthiness, permitted a defective locomotive into the stream of commerce, failed to design and manufacture its locomotive to comply with applicable federal regulations, and was otherwise careless and negligent.

In its motion for summary judgment, G.E. contends the LIA preempts all plaintiff's state-law claims. G.E. also argues that section 229.141 does not apply to the locomotive at issue, because the UP 9777 locomotive is not an MU locomotive as defined under applicable regulations.¹ G.E. further argues that section 229.141 does not regulate welds.

In response, Roth asserts the LIA does not preempt her claims, because she does not seek to regulate locomotives by imposing additional requirements beyond those imposed under the LIA, but rather merely seeks compensation under state tort laws for G.E.'s violation of existing regulations under the LIA. Roth maintains the slow speed of the locomotive before impact, and the relative light weight of the tank car, provide evidence of non-compliance with section 229.141. Roth further argues that the LIA does not apply to state tort claims against manufacturers, because the Secretary of Transportation has not prescribed a regulation concerning the tort liability of manufacturers of locomotive parts or appurtenances. Finally, Roth asks this Court to overlook any shortcomings in Bogett's testimony, on the basis that G.E. did not adequately respond to discovery requests.

In its reply, G.E. contends that even if Roth's claims are not preempted, Roth has not offered any admissible evidence to support her allegation that any of the locomotive's welds were defective. Specifically, G.E. contends the only evidence Roth has to support the claim that G.E. failed to comply with section 229.141 is Bogett's testimony, and Bogett's testimony is inadmissible because it fails to meet the standards for the admission of expert testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Therefore, G.E. argues, Roth has offered no admissible evidence to oppose G.E.'s summary judgment motion.

II. APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

A court shall grant a motion for summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A court must consider the facts and the inferences to be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Carey v. Shiley, Inc., 32 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1096 (S.D.Iowa 1998).

To preclude the entry of summary judgment, the nonmoving party must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to his case, and on which he has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Reed v. ULS Corp., 178 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.1999). When a motion is made and supported as required in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. At the summary judgment stage, the court may not make determinations about the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

B. Failure to State LIA Claim

The Court first addresses G.E.'s contention that Roth has failed to establish a claim under the LIA because the regulation she cites does not apply to the locomotive at issue or to welds, and because Roth has offered insufficient evidence of a regulatory violation. Even if the design regulation Roth cites does not apply to the locomotive in this case, once any part or appurtenance is attached to a locomotive, the LIA requires the railroad to maintain it in good repair at all times. Herold v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 761 F.2d 1241, 1246 (8th Cir.1985) ("The argument that there can be no violation of the Act absent a violation of some regulation or order of [the regulatory commission] is without merit.").

G.E. next argues that Plaintiff has not offered admissible evidence to support the allegation that any welds on the locomotive were defective. The LIA imposes "`an absolute and continuing duty' to provide safe equipment." Richardson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 17 F.3d 213, 216, 218 n. 4 (7th Cir.1994) (approving jury instruction that, "[t]here is no duty on the plaintiff to demonstrate specifically what, if anything, was wrong with the handbrake wheel," when plaintiff alleged handbrake of locomotive was not in proper condition, safe to operate) (quoting Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 188, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 93 L.Ed. 1282 (1949)). A plaintiff does not have to show that negligence caused equipment to operate improperly or unsafely; proving the improper or unsafe operation "is effective to show negligence as a matter of law." Id. at 216. When a part or appurtenance of a locomotive does not perform properly, the person injured need not prove the existence of a defect. Southern R. Co. v. Bryan, 375 F.2d 155, 158 (5th Cir.1967) (stating principle announced in cases involving violations of federal Safety Appliance Act (SAA) applied with equal force to cases under LIA) (citing O'Donnell v. Elgin, J. & E.R. Co., 338 U.S. 384, 70 S.Ct. 200, 94 L.Ed. 187 (1949); ...