Walter v. CSX Transp.
| Decision Date | 09 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-1583S |
| Parties | ALAN WALTER, Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a removed diversity action for the personal injuries suffered by Plaintiff on or about July 21, 2017 . Plaintiff alleges that the negligence of and noncompliance with provisions of New York Labor Law by Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. (“Defendant”) caused his injuries (id.). As his counsel later argues ), for want of plank, Plaintiff fell into a hole and injured himself.
Presently before this Court are the parties' respective Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket Nos. 30 (Plaintiff), 32 (Defendant)). Plaintiff moved for judgment applying strict liability standards under New York Labor Law against Defendant (Docket No. 30). Defendant opposes and moves for summary judgment denying the applicability of the Labor Law (Docket No. 32).
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 30) is denied, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 32) is granted. This case is dismissed.
According to the Complaint , Defendant contracted with Clark Rigging & Rental Corporation (“Clark Rigging”) for construction work in Buffalo, New York (id. ¶ 11). Clark Rigging employed Plaintiff (id. ¶ 14). On July 21, 2017, “Plaintiff was caused to sustain severe and permanent injuries through the negligence, carelessness and recklessness” of Defendant and “as a result of dangerous, hazardous, defective and unsafe conditions existing thereat” (id. ¶ 15).
The First Cause of Action alleges Defendant's negligence (id. ¶¶ 1-20). The Second Cause of Action alleges Defendant's noncompliance with New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6), provisions of the State Industrial Code, and unspecified provisions of federal Occupation Safety and Health Regulations, leading to Plaintiff's injuries ()).
Each party submitted a Statement of Facts in support of their respective Motions (Docket Nos. 30, 32). They responded, replied to those Statements, and Defendant submitted its Counterstatement (Docket Nos. 38, 39, 35). Each side generally accepts the facts as asserted by the opponent. Most of the facts stated therein are undisputed.
Pursuant to this Court's Local Civil Rule 56(a)(1) and (2), this Court accepts the facts agreed upon by the parties while noting material disagreements.
Niagara Erecting, Inc. (an affiliate of Clark Rigging), contracted with Defendant to remove bridge structures from the CSX right of way (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶ 1). Clark Rigging furnished crane rentals (Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶ 18). For a phase of Defendant's construction project, Clark Rigging was to supply and use cranes for the removal and replacement of bridges, including use of the 600-ton crane (“600-crane”) (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶¶ 3-4, 11; Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶ 7; Docket No. 35, Pl. Opposing Statement ¶ 7).
The parties agreed that Clark Rigging owned flatbed trailers, including lowboy trailers (Docket No. 35, Pl. Opposing Statement ¶ 21; Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶ 21; but cf. Docket No. 35, Pl. Opposing Statement ¶ 21 ()). Plaintiff's duties with Clark Rigging included transporting cranes and crane components to worksites and assisting in setting up cranes (Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶ 22). Plaintiff claims that that his responsibilities with Clark Rigging also included setting up cranes (Docket No. 35, Pl. Opposing Statement ¶ 17; cf. Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶ 17).
Clark Rigging began assembly of the 600-crane on July 21, 2017 (Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 6; cf. Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶ 6; Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶¶ 13, 15). There were two cranes on the site: the 600-crane and the smaller crane used to assemble the 600-crane (Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶ 16).
On July 21, Plaintiff picked up a trailer from Clark Rigging's lot containing a fully assembled small crane on a lowboy trailer. He brought this crane and trailer to Defendant's job site (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶ 7; Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 27.) After delivering that crane, Plaintiff was instructed to help with assembly of the 600-crane (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶ 8).
After assisting with attaching a boom to the 600-crane, Plaintiff drove the tractor back to the yard to retrieve another lowboy trailer (Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 30; see Docket No. 39, Pl. Reply Statement ¶ 30 (admission)). This is the Syracuse lowboy trailer with a winch on it . Plaintiff denies any role in loading the Syracuse lowboy trailer where he subsequently had his accident (Docket No. 39, Pl. Reply Statement ¶ 26).
The deck of the Syracuse lowboy was made of 2-inch by 12-inch wooden planks (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶ 23). This deck, however, was not visible and none of the Clark Rigging employees (including Plaintiff) knew there was a missing plank on that deck underneath a piece of equipment (id. ¶¶ 17-18). The hole from this missing plank was 12 inches by 3-4 feet long (id. ¶ 24; Docket No. 30, Pl. Atty. Affirm., Ex. G, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 97; cf. Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 24 (admission)).
Plaintiff argues that the deck was a “walking-working surface” (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶ 25), while Defendant calls this a legal conclusion rather than a statement of fact (Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 25).
Clark Rigging employees then assembled the 600-crane with one employee operating the small crane to lift the winch from the Syracuse lowboy trailer (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶¶ 19, 20). Plaintiff held the rope/tagline to the winch guiding the airborne winch (id. ¶ 21; see Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 35).
The parties differ with what occurred next. Plaintiff claims he walked three to five steps and stepped into the hole in the Syracuse lowboy deck, falling through the trailer (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶ 21). Plaintiff denied tripping or slipping; he claims that he stepped with his right foot into an opening in the deck (Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 39; see Docket No. 39, Pl. Reply Statement ¶ 39 (admission)). Citing his deposition testimony, Plaintiff claims he hit his knee, still holding onto the rope/tagline. One of his Clark Rigging supervisors, John Clark, asked Plaintiff if he was all right and Plaintiff replied that he was okay. (Docket No. 39, Pl. Reply Statement ¶ 42.) He then testified that he had to sit down and that .
Defendant counters that Plaintiff was incorrect and claims that he did not fall through the trailer (Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 21). Citing Plaintiff's deposition testimony, Defendant argues that Plaintiff testified that his right foot stepped into the hole in the lowboy deck for “a spilt-second” while his left foot remained on the deck and his right foot “went in and out” of the opening and he kept going (id.; Docket No. 30, Pl. Atty. Affirm. Ex. G, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 132, 144 ()). In its Counterstatement, Defendant concludes from Plaintiff's testimony that, as he walked following the winch, he went down into a hole and “whacked my right knee” . Defendant contends that after Plaintiff “momentarily” stepped into the opening, he did not release the tag line, and he continued performing his task of helping to guide the winch as it was hoisted to the 600-crane (Docket No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 42).
Plaintiff states that the distance from the lowboy deck to the ground was about 18 inches (Docket No. 30, Pl. Statement ¶ 22). Defendant adds that Plaintiff testified that this deck was approximately a foot or foot and a half above the ground (Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶ 36; cf. Docket No. 35, Pl. Opposing Statement ¶ 36 (admission of ¶ 36); No. 38, Def. Opposing Statement ¶ 22; Docket No. 30, Pl. Atty. Affirm. Ex. G, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 117).
Defendant produced photographs (accepted by Plaintiff for these Motions) of the Syracuse lowboy trailer and the hole in the deck. Plaintiff identified in the picture the site of the accident. .)
Defendant states that Clark Rigging handled the set-up of the crane and Defendant was not involved in the process (Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶ 47; Docket No. 35, Pl. Opposing Statement ¶ 47 (admission)). Plaintiff had no interaction with Defendant and that he received all his supervision from Clark Rigging and not from Defendant (Docket No. 32, Def. Statement ¶¶ 48, 50-52; see Docket No. 35, Pl. Opposing Statement ¶¶ 48, 50-52 (admissions)).
Defendant did not conduct a...
To continue reading
Request your trial