Whitman v. CSX Transp., Inc.
Decision Date | 02 June 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 94-CV-10152-BC.,94-CV-10152-BC. |
Citation | 887 F. Supp. 983 |
Parties | Larry A. WHITMAN, Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant. Robert K. HOBSON, Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Daniel T. Sawers, Buffalo, NY, Randall S. Winston, Waterford, MI, for plaintiffs.
A.T. Lippert, Saginaw, MI, for defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs have brought actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), alleging that they suffered hearing loss as a result of the defendant's negligence in failing to provide them with a safe place to work. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (D. 9) argues that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
After reviewing the motion and the plaintiffs' response thereto, the court determines that the matter can be determined without a hearing. The motion will be granted.
Plaintiffs are long-term employees of the defendant railroad; both commenced their employment with the defendant in 1969, and both claim hearing loss as a result of the defendant's negligence. They filed separate complaints on May 24, 1994, and the cases were consolidated by order of this court on August 24, 1994.
Plaintiff Whitman completed a hearing loss questionnaire supplied by the defendant on May 24, 1990, exactly four years before filing this suit. (See Exhibits A and B to Defendant's Brief). The following are some of the questions on the form and the answers Whitman supplied:
Whitman circled the word "yes" and placed an X next to the word "currently" to indicate that he had the following conditions: "difficulty in understanding spoken words in a noisy environment," "feeling that familiar sounds are muffled," and "need to be near or look at a person speaking to help understand the words."
In response to Defendant's Request for Admission in connection with this litigation, signed by Whitman's counsel on November 29, 1994, Whitman admitted that he answered and signed the hearing loss questionnaire and that the copy submitted by the defendant is a genuine and authentic copy of the original questionnaire. (Exhibit B to Defendant's Brief). However, he denied all of the following:
Plaintiff Whitman did not respond to the defendant's request to admit, "As of May 24, 1990, Larry A. Whitman had difficulty sic understanding people when they were speaking in a low tone." Accordingly, that statement is deemed admitted by Plaintiff Whitman under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.
On May 17, 1991, Whitman's hearing was tested by a consultant hired by the defendant. The report of this test, dated August 7, 1991, states, "Your hearing in both ears is satisfactory for hearing and understanding conversation." The report also contains small graphs of readings from the right and left ear, though the numbers are not explained.
In his affidavit, Whitman attests that he "relied upon the representation made by the aforementioned notice that my hearing was `satisfactory' and, therefore, I did not know or have any reason to know that I actually had a hearing loss which was related to my employment with the Defendant." . Whitman further attested, "That at no time did anyone from the Defendant, CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., inform me or give me any information whatsoever that I was being exposed to noise at work that might cause a hearing loss." (Id., para. 7).
On May 13, 1993, Plaintiff had an independent audiogram performed. At that time, he was informed that his hearing loss was due to noise exposure. . 1
Plaintiff Hobson completed a hearing loss questionnaire on January 21, 1990, about four years and four months before filing this lawsuit. The following are some of the questions on the form and the answers he supplied.
Hobson circled the word "yes" to indicate that he had the following conditions: pain in the ears, ringing in the ears, feeling pressure in the ears, difficulty in understanding spoken words in a noisy environment, feeling that familiar sounds are muffled, and "need to be near or look at a person speaking to help understand the words."
In response to Defendant's Request for Admission in connection with this litigation, signed by Hobson's counsel on November 29, 1994, Hobson admitted that he answered and signed the hearing loss questionnaire and that the copy submitted by the defendant is a genuine and authentic copy of the original questionnaire. (Exhibit D to Defendant's Brief). He also admitted that in 1987, his wife told him that he had the volume on the television turned up all the time and that the volume was too loud. However, he denied all of the following:
(Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs' Brief).
Hobson indicated in his affidavit that at about the same time as he filled out the questionnaire, he met with a claim agent for the defendant and that the claim agent told him "that he did not have a claim for the hearing loss he noted on the questionnaire, due to the fact that any loss he had suffered was caused by aging and not due to any noise exposure on the railroad." . Hobson further attested that he relied on the claim agent's representation that his hearing loss was not noise related "and, therefore, he did not know or have any reason to know that the actual cause of his hearing loss was related to his employment with the Defendant." (Id., para. 7). Hobson attests, "That at no time did anyone from the Defendant, CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., inform me or give me any information whatsoever that I was being exposed to noise at work that might cause a hearing loss." (Id., para. 9).
Hobson had an independent audiogram performed on May 13, 1993. He attested that at that time he "was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monarch v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co.
...100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259; Dubose v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. (5th Cir.1984) 729 F.2d 1026, 1028-1029; Whitman v. CSX Transp., Inc. (E.D.Mich.1995) 887 F.Supp. 983, 989.) We think the trial court's use of the "potentially caused" language was in accord with existing law. Under the d......
-
Stephenson v. Csx Transportation, Inc., 2002-CA-001796-MR.
...R. Co., 951 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1991); Fries v. Chicago & Northwestern Transp. Co., 909 F.2d 1092 (7th Cir. 1990); Whitman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 887 F. Supp. 983 (E.D. Mich. 1995); Chatham v. CSX Transp., Inc., 613 So.2d 341 (Ala. 1993) (continuing tort doctrine not applied to original injury......
-
Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...could expire before the plaintiff judged his hearing loss sufficiently severe to warrant bringing suit." Whitman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 887 F.Supp. 983, 991 (E.D.Mich.1995). On the undisputed record of this case, the evidence is overwhelming that Plaintiff knew or should have known both of h......