Wood v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 18-1886 |
| Parties | YOLANDA WOOD, Administratrix of THE ESTATE OF AARON LEE SIMPSON, JR. Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, A/K/A AMTRAK Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Yolanda Wood, filed this negligence, wrongful death, and survival action against Defendant, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, after her thirteen-year-old son was tragically struck and killed by Defendant's train. Defendant seeks summary judgment on all claims in the Complaint as well as the exclusion of the testimony of Plaintiff's expert, Richard Beall, pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
For the reasons set forth below, I will grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff's claims of negligence, excessive speed, failure to train, failure to erect fencing along the right-of-way, and punitive damages. I will deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the issue of wanton conduct. Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Mr. Beall will be denied without prejudice.
A. Statement of Facts1
On December 14, 2016, shortly before 4:35 p.m., thirteen-year-old Aaron Simpson ("Simpson") was walking from his home to the nearby youth center for an after-school program.2 On route, Simpson entered Defendant Amtrak's right-of-way near the Parkesburg, Pennsylvania train station and began walking on Defendant's tracks.3
Simpson and his parents had lived in Parkesburg since June 2016.4 Starting about a month after his family moved to the area until the time of his death, Simpson regularly attended programs at the youth center.5 Simpson was usually driven to the youth center by his father,6 but, as a result of a promotion at work in November 2016, Simpson's father was unable to drive Simpson to the after-school program.7 Both Simpson's father and Plaintiff, Yolanda Wood, Simpson's mother, warned Simpson to be careful because there were train tracks in the area.8 In fact, train horns could be heard from Simpson's home.9 Plaintiff claims that Simpson was walking on Defendant's tracks for at least 195 feet before the accident.10
At the same time that Simpson was walking on the tracks, Amtrak Keystone Service Train No. 647 was travelling westbound toward Simpson.11 The train was operated by Scott Wilson ("Engineer Wilson").12 As the train approached the area of the tracks where Simpson was walking, Engineer Wilson slowed the train because of a temporary speed restriction of 60 miles per hour, internally created by Defendant (the "Amtrak Slow Order").13 Without the Amtrak Slow Order, the speed limit for that same stretch of track is 90 miles per hour, as mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA").14
Plaintiff's expert, James Loumiet, opines that the actual line of sight from the point of impact with Simpson to the engineer's cabin was 4,200 feet, which would have made Simpson visible to the engineer for approximately 45.4 seconds prior to the accident.15 As the train approached Simpson, it entered a slight curve. Loumiet concludes that, after coming out of that curve, Engineer Wilson had a straight line of sight for approximately 2,438 feet, approximately 26.6 seconds prior to the accident.16 It is undisputed that Engineer Wilson first saw Simpson on the tracks, with his back to the train, walking away from the train, from a distance of about 1,312 feet or 13.6 seconds before the point of impact.17
When Engineer Wilson saw Simpson, he began blowing the train's horn.18 The train's horn also activated a bell, and the lights on the front of the train started flashing.19 At the time the horn was blown, the train was traveling at 61 miles per hour.20 It is undisputed that the train continued to accelerate until about 6.6 seconds before impact,21 reaching a maximum speed of 67 miles per hour at this time.22
After seeing Simpson on the tracks, Engineer Wilson decreased the throttle from T8 to T6,23 but then increased the throttle from T6 to T7.24 While the parties agree that the adjustments to the throttle were made manually by Engineer Wilson,25 they dispute why the throttle increased to T7. Plaintiff asserts that Wilson intentionally increased the throttle, and Defendant claims the throttle "settled" at T7.26 According to Plaintiff's expert Loumiet, these throttle adjustments occurred 10.6 to 11.6 seconds before impact.27
It is undisputed that, two seconds later, Engineer Wilson moved the throttle to the idle position.28 Plaintiff's expert Loumiet concludes that this last throttle adjustment occurred 8.6 to 9.6 seconds before impact.29
As the train continued to approach, with its horn blowing, Simpson was walking with his back to the train on the same track that the train was traveling—on the south side of the track, just outside of the rails.30 Plaintiff alleges that Engineer Wilson continuously blew the horn for 11.3 seconds without any reaction from Simpson.31 It is undisputed that Simpson was on a FaceTime video chat with friends for approximately 10 minutes, immediately preceding the accident.32
The parties agree that Engineer Wilson applied the train's service brake 3.6 to 4.6 seconds before impact33 and that, when Engineer Wilson finally applied the brakes, he only engaged the service brake and not the emergency brake.34 When asked why he did not immediately brake upon seeing Simpson on the tracks, Engineer Wilson testified that he wanted to give Simpson "a chance to react and get off the tracks."35 And when asked why he applied the service brake and not the emergency brake, Wilson testified, "I don't know."36
Seconds before impact,37 Simpson ran from the south side rail (the left side of the track as the train approached), directly in front of the train, to the north side rail (right side).38 As will be discussed below, Defendant claims that this was when Simpson was in peril. According to Defendant, this was the point at which Engineer Wilson's duty to attempt to avoid the collision was triggered. Simpson continued to run along the north side of the track, but a trestle guardrail blocked further escape,39 and he was struck by the train.40 The train was traveling 64 to 65 miles per hour when it hit Simpson.41 Plaintiff's expert, Loumiet, concludes that if Wilson had applied the service brake sooner, at least 3 seconds after he sounded the horn, it would have taken the train an additional 4.6 seconds to reach the point of impact, and Simpson could have avoided the trestle and would not have been hit.42 Loumiet also concludes that had Wilson applied the emergency brakes 3 seconds after he first sounded the horn, it would have taken the train an additional 7 seconds to reach the point of impact, and, again, the trestle could have been avoided and impact would not have occurred.43
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 states, in pertinent part:
A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. 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. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "Through summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims that do not present a 'genuine dispute as to any material fact' and for which a jury trial would be an empty and unnecessary formality." Capitol Presort Servs., LLC v. XL Health Corp., 175 F. Supp. 3d 430, 433 (M.D. Pa. 2016).
A factual dispute is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue is "genuine" only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis that would allow a reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. The court must resolve all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in favor of the non-moving party. Saldana v. Kmart Corp, 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001).
The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of its basis for seeking summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant must point to portions of the record that it believes show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. If the movant meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to "go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324. Unsubstantiated arguments made in briefs are not considered evidence of asserted facts. Versarge v. Twp. of Clinton, 984 F.2d 1359, 1370 (3d Cir. 1993).
In resolving Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, which involves examination of Plaintiff's negligence, wrongful death, and survival actions, the following issues must be examined: (1) what duty of care did Defendant owe to Simpson; (2) whether Defendant breached its duty of care by acting wantonly; (3) whether Simpson's own negligence and wanton conduct bars Plaintiff's recovery; (4) whether Plaintiff's claims based on the train's speed are preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA"); and (5) whether Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages can survive summary judgment.44 I address each of these issues in turn below.
Defendant first argues that Plaintiff's negligence claim is barred because Simpson was a trespasser under Pennsylvania's railroad civil immunity statute and, therefore, Plaintiff may only pursue a claim of wanton or willful conduct. Pennsylvania's railroad civil immunity statute provides that:
To continue reading
Request your trial