Walls v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 8:20-CV-413 |
| Citation | 580 F.Supp.3d 636 |
| Parties | Christopher WALLS, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
Jayson D. Nelson, Hunegs, Leneave Law Firm, Omaha, NE, Joshua N. Miller, Paul A. Banker, Randal W. LeNeave, Hunegs, Leneave Law Firm, Wayzata, MN, for Plaintiff.
Anne M. O'Brien, Daniel Hassing, William M. Lamson, Jr., Lamson, Dugan Law Firm, Reha Dallon, Union Pacific - Law Department, Omaha, NE, for Defendant.
Christopher Walls has sued Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") for negligence and negligence per se under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act ("FELA") and Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") regulations. Before the Court is Walls's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filing 52. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Walls's motion.
This suit arises from an injury Walls sustained while acting as a conductor for one of Union Pacific's trains. On February 18, 2020, Walls arrived at Union Pacific's Herington Yard in Kansas. Filing 54-2 at 4. That day, Walls was to serve as conductor for a train traveling from Herington to Topeka, Kansas, where he would drop off cars, pick up other cars, and then return to Herington. Filing 54-2 at 4; Filing 54-3 at 6. Accompanying Walls on this journey were Toby Becker, the train's engineer, and Scott Jones, the brakeman. Filing 54-2 at 4. Walls and Jones had performed this job together several times. Filing 54-2 at 4; Filing 54-4 at 5–6.
Walls, Becker, and Jones travelled westward on the train toward Union Pacific's Topeka Yard. Filing 54-2 at 5; Filing 54-3 at 7. As the crew neared the Topeka Yard at 2:00 p.m. from the east, Jones deboarded the train at Milepost 69. Filing 54-2 at 5; Filing 54-4 at 6. Jones's duty was to use an electric, hand-operated switch which would allow the train to enter the Topeka Yard. Filing 54-2 at 5; Filing 54-4 at 7–8. After Jones deboarded, the train continued westward. Filing 54-7. Once the front of the train reached Milepost 70, Walls deboarded.1 Filing 54-2 at 5. At Milepost 70 is a signal that flashes colored lights to the west. Filing 54-3 at 11; Filing 54-4 at 8. The signal tells the train's operators when it is safe for the train to enter the Topeka yard. Filing 65-1 at 7–8. After Walls deboarded, the train continued westward and then stopped once the rear of the train had passed by Milepost 70 and the signal. Filing 54-2 at 5. Walls then boarded the car at the end of the train. Filing 54-2 at 5.
To enter the Topeka Yard, the train needed to perform a "shove" move. Filing 54-3 at 10. This required the train to reverse directions and move eastward into the Topeka Yard. Filing 54-3 at 10–11. What is supposed to happen during a proper shove move is that the rear of the train, moving in reverse eastward, would pass Milepost 70 and the signal. Filing 65-1 at 3–4, 8–9; Filing 65-3 at 6–7. Once the rear of the train had passed Milepost 70 and the signal, Jones would "throw" the switch to allow the train to enter the Topeka Yard. Filing 54-4 at 8. However, if Jones threw the switch before the rear of the train had passed Milepost 70 and the signal, the signal would flash red and the train would have to stop. Filing 54-3 at 11–12.
Walls, looking eastward from the end of the train at the westward-facing signal at Milepost 70, served as the eyes and ears of Becker, the engineer, who was operating the train from the lead locomotive at the western front of the train. Filing 65-1 at 7; Filing 65-3 at 6–7. From his vantage point on the rear car at the easternmost part of the train, Walls could watch the signal and make sure the signal did not flash red before the rear of the train passed Milepost 70. Filing 54-3 at 10; Filing 54-4 at 6–7. If the signal went red before the rear of the train passed Milepost 70, Walls could radio Becker to stop the train. Filing 54-2 at 5; Filing 65-2 at 11–12.
Walls received approval to begin moving the train eastward and radioed Becker to begin moving the train in reverse. Filing 54-3 at 11, Filing 65-2 at 8–9. Jones, who was standing somewhere near Milepost 69, watched the train to determine when the rear car had passed Milepost 70 and the signal. Filing 54-4 at 8; Filing 65-3 at 7–8, 11–12. According to Walls, he had told Jones to wait until he radioed Jones that the rear of the train had passed Milepost 70 and the signal before throwing the switch. Filing 54-2 at 11. Jones, however, claims that Walls did not tell Jones to wait until Walls radioed him that the rear of the train had passed Milepost 70 and the signal. Filing 54-4 at 17. Instead, Jones watched the train and when he believed he could see that the rear car had passed Milepost 70 and the signal, he threw the switch. Filing 54-4 at 8. When Jones threw the switch early the signal flashed red. Filing 54-2 at 5; Filing 54-4 at 8–9. Walls, looking eastward from the rear car of the train, saw the signal flash red and directed Becker to stop the train. Filing 54-2 at 5.
When a train stops, slack between the cars may roll through the train in a chain reaction toward one end of the train. Filing 54-2 at 9–10. Slack rolling through the train can significantly jolt a person riding in a train car. Filing 65-2 at 16–17. As Walls was expecting the train to stop, he began talking to Jones on his radio about whether Jones had thrown the switch early and caused the signal to flash red. Filing 54-2 at 6. Walls claims that, while speaking with Jones on his radio, Walls was grasping the horizontal bar of the rear car with his right hand and had both feet placed adequately apart on the platform. Filing 54-2 at 30. Walls also claims that he always takes slack rolling towards him into account when riding in a train car. Filing 54-2 at 29. The parties dispute whether Walls should have been able to hear slack rolling towards him as he stood in the rear car of the train. Filing 54-2 at 6–7; Filing 65-2 at 16–17.
While Walls was talking on the radio to Jones, he was suddenly ejected from the rear car. Filing 54-2 at 7. Walls's right foot landed on a railroad tie, shattering his tibia and causing severe injury to his entire right leg. Filing 54-2 at 7–8, 12. When Walls looked up, he saw the train rolling towards him. Filing 54-2 at 8. He quickly crawled over the rails to avoid the oncoming train. Filing 54-2 at 8. Upon reaching safety, Walls radioed Jones and Becker to inform them that he was injured. Filing 54-2 at 9. Walls was later transported to a hospital. Filing 54-2 at 12.
Union Pacific employees investigated the incident. Filing 54-3 at 6, 8–10. It is unclear from the record what conclusion Union Pacific made as to Becker's conduct, and Walls does not provide evidence that Becker behaved negligently. See Filing 54-2 at 9. As to Jones throwing the switch early, Union Pacific Rule 8.2 states, "The employee operating the switch or derail is responsible for the position of the switch or derail in use." Filing 54-6 at 3. It also requires that "switches and derails [be] properly lined for the intended route." Filing 54-6 at 3. Violating Union Pacific operating rule 8.2 is a "Critical event," which means it can involve a "life or death" scenario. Filing 54-4 at 15; Filing 54-5 at 1, 4; Filing 54-6 at 3.2
On October 12, 2020, Walls filed suit against Union Pacific. Filing 1. In his Complaint, Walls brings a negligence action under FELA in Count I, where he alleges that Union Pacific failed to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work, failed to properly train employees and adopt safety measures for "shove" movements and operating switches, and engaged in other negligent conduct. Filing 1 at 3. In Count II, Walls brings a FELA negligence per se action pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA") and Union Pacific's operating rules, claiming that Union Pacific failed to comply with operating rule 8.2 and FRA regulations. Filing 1 at 3–4. Walls filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 13, 2021, requesting that the Court find Union Pacific liable under both counts, with damages being the only remaining issue. Filing 53 at 3. Walls also requests that the Court prevent Union Pacific from asserting contributory negligence as a defense to his negligence per se claim. Filing 52 at 1–2.
"Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Garrison v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC , 833 F.3d 881, 884 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ). "[S]ummary judgment is not disfavored and is designed for every action." Briscoe v. Cnty. of St. Louis , 690 F.3d 1004, 1011 n.2 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Torgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1043 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court will view "the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ... drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Whitney v. Guys, Inc. , 826 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Hitt v. Harsco Corp. , 356 F.3d 920, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2004) ). Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, " Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment motion to be opposed by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the mere pleadings themselves." Se. Mo. Hosp. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. , 642 F.3d 608, 618 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). The moving party need not produce evidence showing "an absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Johnson v. Wheeling Mach. Prods. , 779 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Celote...
To continue reading
Request your trial