832 F. Supp. 2d 1260
E.D. Wash.2011Background
- Plaintiff sues under FELA alleging cumulative hip trauma from years of employment by BNSF Railway Company.
- Plaintiff contends BNSF failed to provide a reasonably safe place to work.
- Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BNSF; oral argument held June 1, 2011.
- Plaintiff relies on Dr. Andres to show ergonomic risk factors and inadequate response.
- Court analyzes FELA duties, foreseeability, and safeguards; discusses ballast FRSA preemption and ergonomic evidence.
- Court denies BNSF’s motion; issues will be decided by a jury, including the weight of Dr. Andres’ opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does substantial evidence create a genuine issue of material fact on breach of duty under FELA? | Andres evidence shows unaddressed ergonomic risks. | Andres offers conjecture; no deviation from industry practice shown. | Yes; genuine issue exists; summary judgment denied. |
| Are ballast-related FELA claims precluded by FRSA? | Claims relate to unsafe walkways and yard conditions, not ballast size. | Nickels precludes ballast-size claims under 49 C.F.R. § 213.103. | Not precluded in all respects; ballast-related walkways may survive; issues remain as to scope. |
| Is Dr. Andres’ testimony competent to create a material fact issue on safety practices? | Andres’ ergonomic analysis supports unsafe conditions or insufficient safeguards. | Andres’ opinions are insufficient to prove breach of duty. | Yes; Andres’ report suffices to create a material factual issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (1987) (FELA duty to provide a safe place to work)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment must rest on evidence; no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden shifting; moving party must show absence of genuine issue)
- Gottshall v. United States, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (negligence basis for liability under FELA; not workers’ comp)
- Mullahon v. Union Pac. R.R., 64 F.3d 1358 (9th Cir. 1995) (test of foreseeability; foreseeability need not be precise to the injury)
- Nickels v. Grand Trunk W. Railroad, Inc., 560 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2009) (ballast regulation can preclude ballast-size claims; scope limited)
- Taylor v. Burlington N. Ry. Co., 787 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1986) (contributory negligence concepts; risk management by employer)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (foreseeability standard in duty analysis)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (FRSA preemption when regulations substantially subsume the claim)
- Aparicio v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 84 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 1996) (evidence of ergonomic risk can be relevant to duty)