Bisnott v. Norfolk Southern Railway
338 Ga. App. 897
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Delroy Bisnott, a Norfolk Southern conductor, injured his lower back on Jan. 23, 2008 while manually realigning a misaligned drawbar (coupler) using the railroad's "backup method."
- Bisnott attempted to move the drawbar twice; the second attempt caused severe back pain though he completed the coupling.
- A Norfolk Southern mechanic later inspected the coupler and initially testified it had "no defects" and moved easily, but his testimony about lubrication was contradictory and raised issues about whether the drawbar had been lubricated.
- Bisnott presented expert testimony that a properly functioning drawbar should move easily with human force and that failure to do so is a defect and hazard; he also offered evidence that safer alternative tools/methods existed.
- Bisnott sued under FELA (negligence; safe workplace duty) and the FSAA (strict liability for safety appliances that fail to perform). Trial court granted summary judgment for Norfolk Southern; the appellate court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach (FELA) — was railroad negligent in providing defective equipment/ procedure? | Bisnott: drawbar failed to move smoothly (defect); expert evidence shows defect and that alternatives existed; backup method unreasonable. | Norfolk Southern: no defect shown; mechanic found coupler in good condition; backup method was proper. | Reversed summary judgment — genuine issues of fact exist about defect and reasonableness of backup method. |
| Foreseeability/Knowledge (FELA) — did railroad know or should have known of defect? | Bisnott: evidence that lubrication was necessary and that Norfolk Southern stopped lubricating; alternatives known. | Norfolk Southern: denies knowledge; mechanic later suggested lubricant present (contradictory). | Reversed — contradictory testimony and expert evidence create jury questions about existence of defect and railroad knowledge. |
| Causation (FELA) — did employer negligence play any part or did plaintiff solely cause injury? | Bisnott: even slight employer negligence that contributes suffices; he asserts he used reasonable force and complied with instructions. | Norfolk Southern: Bisnott should have sought assistance after initial failure; his second attempt was violation and his own proximate cause. | Reversed — factual disputes about whether Bisnott overexerted or complied with instructions; FELA's relaxed causation standard makes this a jury issue. |
| FSAA liability — does injury during preparation for coupling fall under strict liability? | Bisnott: drawbar failed to perform as required by FSAA; expert says malfunction can exist even if coupling later succeeded. | Norfolk Southern: relies on Hiles to argue misaligned drawbar alone is not an FSAA violation and employees preparing cars are outside FSAA. | Reversed — Hiles does not bar claims where drawbar malfunctioned; material fact issues remain whether appliance failed to perform, so FSAA claim for jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Hiles, 516 U.S. 400 (1996) (discusses when misaligned drawbar constitutes an FSAA violation and limits on FSAA claims)
- Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Zeagler, 293 Ga. 582 (2013) (state appellate guidance on FELA standards and review of summary judgment)
- Richards v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 330 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2003) (FSAA defect may be shown by failure to function when operated with due care)
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (1947) (FSAA liability can arise when appliance fails to perform at the relevant time)