Blackwell v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
102 A.3d 864
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- 2007: Blackwell sues CSX under FELA for knee injuries from repetitive stress and ballast work.
- 2009: Blackwell settles the FELA claim with CSX and signs a litigation release (the 2009 Release).
- Release terms: releases all liability for repetitive stress/cumulative trauma to lower extremities; substantial portion of consideration for future injuries as well.
- Blackwell reviewed the 2009 Release with counsel and initialed each page; counsel certified explanation of consequences.
- 2013: Blackwell files another FELA suit alleging bilateral plantar fasciitis from the same occupational exposure; CSX moves for summary judgment asserting release precludes the claim.
- Circuit Court grants summary judgment, holding the 2009 Release covers injuries to the lower extremities, including the feet, thus precluding the 2013 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 2009 Release valid under FELA §5 to bar the 2013 claim? | Blackwell argues the release is void under §55/§5 due to unknown risks. | CSX argues the release is a valid known-risk settlement under §5 and Callen/Wicker. | Release valid; bars 2013 claim. |
| Should the court apply the ‘known risk’ standard from Wicker rather than ‘known claim’ from Babbitt? | Blackwell favors ‘known claim’ approach as employee-friendly. | CSX favors ‘known risk’ approach to align with Callen and broader release scope. | Court adopts the ‘known risk’ test; release bars 2013 claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Callen v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 332 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1948) (release not voided when used to compromise liability where controversy exists as to liability and amount)
- Wicker v. Consol. Rail Corp., 142 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1998) (adopts known risk approach; releases valid if risks known to both parties at signing)
- Babbitt v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 104 F.3d 89 (6th Cir. 1997) (known claim approach; releases invalid when not part of a bargained settlement of a known claim)
- Maynard v. Durham & S. Ry. Co., 365 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1961) (federal law governs validity of FELA releases; emphasizes settlement context)
- Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1952) (release void when employee misled about contents through false statements)