Bradley LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan
962 F.3d 907
7th Cir.2020Background
- On August 12, 2016, conductor Bradley LeDure slipped on a small "slick spot" while on the exterior walkway of locomotive UP5683 while preparing a train at about 2:10 a.m.
- UP5683 was the third locomotive in a three-unit consist, stationary on a sidetrack and being readied (tagging/powering procedures) for departure; LeDure thereafter powered down and tagged the unit and reported the fall.
- Union Pacific inspected and cleaned a "small amount of oil" on the walkway; LeDure sued under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) alleging unsafe conditions and inadequate walkway traction/maintenance.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; the district court granted judgment for Union Pacific, finding the LIA inapplicable because the locomotive was not "in use" and that LeDure’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable under FELA.
- LeDure appealed; the Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Union Pacific.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the locomotive was "in use" under the Locomotive Inspection Act | LIA applies because the unit was assembled as part of the train and crew was performing pre-departure tasks | UP5683 was stationary on a sidetrack and being prepared for use, not actually "in use" | Not "in use"; LIA and its regulations do not apply |
| Whether LeDure's injury was reasonably foreseeable under FELA (notice/foreseeability) | UP should have inspected/cleaned the walkway or otherwise known of the hazard | Slick spot was small, isolated, and unknown to UP; no evidence UP had actual or constructive notice | Not foreseeable; no evidence UP knew or should have known of the slick spot; summary judgment for UP |
| Whether walkway traction/maintenance (design/condition) established negligence or causation | Walkway lacked adequate traction (design defect); alternate traction could have prevented the fall | Photos and lay testimony insufficient to show negligence or that an alternate design would have prevented the fall | Evidence insufficient to prove negligence or causation from walkway design; court addressed and rejected this theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Crane v. Cedar Rapids Iowa City Ry., 395 U.S. 166 (U.S. 1969) (regulatory violation under LIA can establish negligence per se but plaintiff must still show injury resulted from that negligence)
- Brady v. Terminal Rail Ass'n of St. Louis, 303 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1938) (framing the question whether a locomotive is "in use" for LIA purposes)
- Lyle v. Atchison T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 177 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1949) (holding servicing/putting an engine in readiness is the antithesis of "using" it)
- Deans v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 152 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 1998) (articulating a test for when a locomotive is "in use")
- Trinidad v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 949 F.2d 187 (5th Cir. 1991) (considering a locomotive "in use" when assembled and pre-departure procedures are complete)
- Holbrook v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 414 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2005) (articulating foreseeability/notice standards for FELA unsafe-condition claims)
- McGinn v. Burlington N. R.R., 102 F.3d 295 (7th Cir. 1996) (discussing notice and foreseeability under FELA)