Slaton v. Climax Molybdenum Co.
| Decision Date | 29 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-00059-SHL |
| Citation | 551 F.Supp.3d 919 |
| Parties | Michael SLATON, Plaintiff, v. CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
R. Ronald Pogge, Hopkins & Huebner PC, Des Moines, IA, Kevin D. Lane, Pro Hac Vice, Paul G. Lane, Pro Hac Vice, Dowd & Dowd PC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
Joseph C. Orlet, Brandan P. Mueller, Pro Hac Vice, Kathryn L. Modeer, Pro Hac Vice, Kristen W. Durant, Pro Hac Vice, Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant.
Order on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
This is a diversity case arising out of injuries suffered in a single-vehicle accident by Plaintiff Michael Slaton ("Slaton"), a professional truck driver, while carrying a load of molybdenum oxide for Defendant Climax Molybdenum Company ("Climax"). Slaton sued Climax on theories of of negligence (Count I) and negligence per se (Count II) for allegedly causing the accident by securing the load improperly.
On June 4, 2021, Climax moved for summary judgment on both Counts. Slaton resisted. The core of the dispute is whether Climax, a shipper, owes a common law duty to Slaton under Iowa law to ensure load security despite federal regulations imposing primary responsibility for load security on the carrier. For reasons explained in full below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Climax's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Slaton has driven as a commercial truck driver for close to 18 years. (ECF 53-1, ¶ 1.) He was employed by Leon Cannon Trucking ("Cannon") from 2016 through August 2018. (Id., ¶ 2.) Cannon hauled freight for Climax. (Id., ¶ 3.)
On July 23, 2018, Slaton arrived at Climax's facility in Fort Madison, Iowa, to pick up a load (the "Load") for transport to Port Allen, Louisiana. (Id., ¶ 5.) The Load consisted of 11 bags of molybdenum oxide, each of which weighed 3,900 pounds. (Id., ¶ 7.) Climax placed the Load down the middle of Slaton's tractor trailer. (Id., ¶ 8.) Climax determined that the center loading process would be used and told Slaton to bring two straps and leave them in the back of the trailer. (ECF 56-1, ¶¶ 5,6.) A picture of the Load was taken after it was loaded and at least one load strap is visible. (ECF 53-1, ¶ 11.) Climax has loaded hundreds of loads of molybdenum oxide down the middle of tractor trailers for transport. (ECF 53-1, ¶ 9.)
Climax's policies and procedures precluded drivers like Slaton from observing or participating in the loading process. (ECF 56-1, ¶ 7.)2 Slaton was directed to a waiting area without a line of sight to the loading dock and told when the Load was ready. (Id., ¶ 8.) Slaton relied on Climax to properly load the trailer. (Id., ¶ 10.) Slaton had driven approximately a dozen or more similar loads of molybdenum from Climax's facility prior to the load he picked up on July 23, 2018, all without incident. (Id., ¶ 11.)
Slaton did not ask to view the Load while it was being loaded. (ECF 53-1, ¶ 14.) He was informed the Load was in his tractor trailer after it was loaded. (Id., ¶ 15.) The doors to his trailer were not closed or sealed after Climax finished loading the molybdenum oxide bags. (Id., ¶¶ 16, 17.) Slaton performed enough of an inspection of the Load to be able to see the securement devices (i.e., straps) that were in place and conclude the Load was adequately secure for transport. (Id., ¶¶ 28, 36; ECF 48-3, pp. 31-32; ECF 56-1, ¶ 34.) He did not, however, get inside his trailer to inspect the Load. (ECF 53-1, ¶ 29.) Slaton was unaware that a ladder or mobile station was available to allow easier inspection of the Load. (ECF 53-1, ¶ 33.) Slaton relied on Climax to properly load the trailer, including determining how bags should be loaded and what restraints should be applied. (ECF 56-1, ¶ 32.) He believed Climax employees were trained on these matters. (Id., ¶ 33.) Even if he had entered the trailer, he would not have asked that the Load be rearranged or secured differently because he did not believe the loading pattern to be unsafe. (Id., ¶ 38.)
After the loading process was finished, Slaton drove his trailer to a weigh station to be weighed. (ECF 53-1, ¶ 18.) He then left Climax's facility and went to a guard shack, where he received a bill of lading and packing slip. (Id., ¶¶ 19-22.) The bill of lading reads, in part: "This signature by the Driver affirms Driver's acceptance of the load as secured prior to departure of this shipment and provides verification that this load has been personally inspected by the Driver and found to be properly loaded, distributed, secured, braced and otherwise properly prepared for safe and road worthy transit." (Id., ¶ 23.) Slaton denies he read the "small print" on the document or had the knowledge or ability to evaluate the Load's safety. (Id.)
After signing the bill of lading, Slaton departed Climax's facility and began driving toward Port Allen, Louisiana. (Id., ¶ 39.) While driving south on US Highway 61 in Marion County, Missouri, Slaton's tractor trailer began to roll while he went around a curve. (Id., ¶¶ 43-44.) He was ejected from the cab and sustained injuries. (Id., ¶ 45.) Slaton's expert opines that the accident was caused by the Load shifting during transport, which he attributes to a failure on Climax's part to properly load the trailer. (ECF 56-1, ¶ 41.)
Climax was aware that bags of molybdenum oxide had been damaged in transit on at least three occasions prior to July 2018, including an incident in March 2016 when a load shifted during transit and bags fell off the pallets on which they were placed. (ECF 56-1, ¶¶ 12-13.) In addition, in December 2017, a tractor trailer loaded at Climax's facility overturned while in route to its destination. (Id., ¶¶ 16-17.) Climax's initial evaluation indicated the loading pattern was a contributing factor. (Id.) Climax alleges, however, that subsequent analysis yielded the conclusion that the center loading process did not cause this accident or the other incidents of load shifting. (Id., ¶¶ 13-17.) All the same, Climax admits a "change in loading pattern was being discussed" at Climax prior to July 2018. (Id., 19.)
By February 5, 2018, an outside expert, Down-River Allegheny, advised Climax that a split loading pattern should be implemented. (Id., ¶ 20.) Split loading refers to placing two rows of three bags across the width of the front of the trailer with five bags grouped together in the rear of the trailer. (Id., ¶ 21.) Down-River Allegheny also advised Climax to use other restraints including placing pallets on friction pads to prevent sliding and using dunnage to fill gaps between bags to fix cargo shifting. (Id., ¶ 22.)
Climax did not advise Slaton or Cannon of the incidents of cargo shifting or the recommendations it received from Down-River Allegheny. (Id., ¶ 26.) Climax contends, however, that it had "no reason" to inform Slaton or Cannon of these incidents or recommendations because no one had been injured and Climax concluded other factors such as excessive speed were primarily to blame. (Id., ¶ 26.) Climax implemented Down-River Allegheny's recommendations after Slaton's accident. (Id., ¶ 27.)
"The 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). "In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the district court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences in the record." Morris v. City of Chillicothe , 512 F.3d 1013, 1018 (8th Cir. 2008). "The party opposing summary judgment cannot rest solely on the pleadings, but instead must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial." Id. (quoting Morgan v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. , 486 F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2007) ). "Mere allegations, unsupported by specific facts or evidence beyond the nonmoving party's own conclusions, are insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment." Morris , 512 F.3d at 1018.
"Substantive law in the relevant area dictates which facts are material, as ‘[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.’ " Sherr v. HealthEast Care Sys. , 999 F.3d 589, 597 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). "A court at this stage does not weigh the evidence, make credibility determinations, or attempt to discern the truth of any factual issue." Sherr , 999 F.3d at 597.
The parties agree that Iowa law applies. "[I]n diversity cases, federal courts must follow state law as announced by the highest court in the state." Caldwell v. TACC Corp. , 423 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal punctuation omitted). "When a state's highest court has not decided an issue, it is up to [the] court to predict how the state's highest court would resolve that issue." Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Advance Terrazzo & Tile Co. , 462 F.3d 1002, 1007 (8th Cir. 2006). Decisions of intermediate state appellate courts, although not binding on federal courts sitting in diversity, are persuasive authority that must be followed when they are the best evidence of what the state law is. Id.
The parties dispute whether this case is governed by principles set forth in United States v. Savage Truck Line, Inc. , 209 F.2d 442 (4th Cir. 1953), for determining when a shipper like Climax owes a duty to a driver like Slaton. In Savage , the Fourth Circuit held:
The primary duty as to the safe loading of property is therefore upon the carrier. When the shipper assumes the responsibility of loading, the general rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial