Caniff v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
438 S.W.3d 368
| Ky. | 2014Background
- Jeffrey Caniff, a CSX Transportation carman with prior neck surgery and reduced left-arm strength, slipped and was injured on Dec. 10, 2004 while carrying a 75–90 lb rail "knuckle" alone on wet, uneven main-line ballast after being instructed by his supervisor to make a repair without assistance.
- Caniff had asked for help but was told to “do what you can do”; he carried the knuckle waist-high (obstructing his view of his feet) about 80 feet before falling; he later stopped working and sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
- Caniff alleged CSXT was negligent in requiring him to carry the knuckle without mechanical or manual assistance (he also alleged negligent ballast maintenance but did not appeal that issue further).
- The trial court granted CSXT summary judgment, ruling Caniff failed to identify any act/omission by CSXT causing the fall and had no expert to support his negligence claim about the knuckle.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of Kentucky granted review and reversed, holding material factual issues existed and expert testimony was not required for the jury to assess negligence in this non‑professional, FELA slip/assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to show negligence re: providing assistance/equipment to carry knuckles | Caniff: no expert required; jury can assess reasonableness of CSXT’s conduct (common‑knowledge issue) | CSXT: expert required to establish industry standard and causation; trial court properly required expert | Kentucky Supreme Court: expert not required here; trial court abused discretion in granting summary judgment for lack of expert because jury could decide without expert testimony |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment standard and review | Caniff: summary judgment improper because material facts disputed and traditional negligence elements (duty, breach, causation) are for jury | CSXT: summary judgment proper because no evidence (expert) establishing breach of duty or industry standard | Court: review under Kentucky summary judgment law (de novo); viewing record favorably to Caniff, genuine issues of material fact exist, so summary judgment improper |
| Burden of proof under FELA | Caniff: need only show defendant’s negligence played any part in injury | CSXT: (implicitly) plaintiff must show more (industry standard/causation) | Court: reiterates Rogers — under FELA plaintiff need only show defendant’s negligence played any part in producing injury; jury should decide |
| Use of post‑injury measures (evidence of a later "knuckle mate") | Caniff: testimony that later CSXT used a knuckle‑mate and task became two‑man supports existence of safer alternative | CSXT: subsequent remedial measures inadmissible to prove negligence | Court: majority notes remedial-measures rule but treats evidence as potential support for jury question (not central to holding); dissent stresses potential inadmissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) (under FELA, plaintiff need only show defendant’s negligence played any part in causing injury)
- Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991) (summary judgment must be cautiously applied; view record in favor of nonmovant)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Begley, 313 S.W.3d 52 (Ky. 2010) (federal law governs substantive FELA issues; forum law governs procedural matters like summary judgment)
- Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676 (Ky. 2005) (trial court has discretion on necessity/timing of expert; inappropriate to use summary judgment as procedural sanction for lack of expert)
- Blankenship v. Collier, 302 S.W.3d 665 (Ky. 2010) (in medical malpractice, absence of required expert can support summary judgment; trial court’s timing reviewed for abuse of discretion)