Britenstine v. CSX Transportation Inc., 3:13-cv-02342

Plaintiff Bruno Britenstine, a CSX welder’s assistant, was injured on Feb. 28, 2011 while preparing to perform a field rail weld near Attica, Ohio.
Field-weld procedure requires removing fastenings, lifting rails with mechanical/hydraulic jacks, and supporting rails with wedges/blocks; each CSX vehicle carried two hydraulic jacks.
On the day in question both truck jacks were in use; Britenstine’s partner/foreman (Williams) directed him to use a claw bar to lift the rail so additional wedges could be placed.
The claw bar slipped, Britenstine fell backward, and he was injured; he sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging CSX’s negligence in failing to provide a reasonably safe workplace.
CSX moved for summary judgment arguing it provided procedures and equipment (two jacks), that a third jack could have been requested, and that Britenstine’s decision to use the claw bar (per his foreman’s direction) broke the causal chain.
The court found genuine issues of material fact about foreman-directed conduct, availability/need for a third jack, and causation under FELA, and denied summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CSX was negligent under FELA	Britenstine contends CSX (through foreman Williams) failed to provide safe means/equipment and directed an unsafe method	CSX says it provided proper procedure and adequate equipment; worker elected unsafe method and could have requested a third jack	Denied summary judgment — factual dispute over foreman conduct and negligence precludes decision as a matter of law
Whether lack of a third jack was CSX’s responsibility	Plaintiff argues foreman should have obtained a third jack or otherwise prevented unsafe work	CSX argues no notice that a third jack was needed and employees could have requested one	Court finds triable issue whether foreman’s failure to secure additional mechanical assistance was negligent
Causation standard under FELA	Britenstine says employer negligence played a part in producing the injury	CSX contends plaintiff’s choice (and foreman direction) severs causation	Court applies FELA’s liberal causation standard and holds causation is a jury question
Appropriateness of summary judgment	Plaintiff says disputed facts require jury resolution	Defendant says undisputed facts favor judgment as a matter of law	Court: issues of material fact exist; summary judgment denied

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must present evidence beyond metaphysical doubt)
Conrail v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (FELA causation: employer negligence need only play any part)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630 (2011) (FELA liability when railroad negligence contributes to injury)
Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 509 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements of a FELA prima facie case)
Williams v. Belknap, 154 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (view facts and inferences in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Atchley v. RK Co., 224 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment and genuine dispute standard)