Connie Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
692 F.3d 1151
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Strickland, a Norfolk Southern switchman with 30+ years’ experience, injured his shoulder while releasing a handbrake on a tank car on July 23, 2009.
- He could not identify the specific rail car or the handbrake’s exact location on the fleet, but attributed the injury to a faulty handbrake that would not release on second-stage effort.
- Strickland sued Norfolk Southern under the FELA and the FSAA, asserting the handbrake inefficiency caused his injury.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Norfolk Southern, relying on Strickland’s failure to identify the rail car and on arguments that evidence was speculative.
- Strickland opposed, offering his deposition testimony and treating-physician evidence to establish Norfolk Southern’s liability under the FSAA and FELA’s liberal pleading standard.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the district court misapplied the standard and that Strickland’s testimony could raise a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court’s summary judgment proper? | Strickland argued the district court erred by basing judgment on failure to identify the rail car. | Norfolk Southern contended that failure to identify the car foreclosed proof of a defective handbrake and thus supported summary judgment. | Summary judgment reversed; car-identity alone cannot justify judgment. |
| Is Strickland’s testimonial evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment regardless of car identity? | Strickland contended his testimony (plus physician evidence) suffices to show fault and injury under FELA/FSAA. | Norfolk Southern argued deposition and affidavit contradictions undermine credibility, justifying judgment as a matter of law. | Summary judgment improper; credibility questions for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) (any part of negligence suffices under FELA)
- McBride v. CSX Transp., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2630 (2011) (FELA/FSAA liability; summary judgment considerations)
- O’Donnell v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co., 338 U.S. 384 (1949) (equipment failure as actionable under FSAA)
- Lisek v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 30 F.3d 823 (1994) (FSAA-related liability; strict liability approach)
- Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525 (1987) (evidence credibility; affidavits and depositions in summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (credibility and weighing evidence are jury functions)
- Atchison, Topeka, & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (1987) (FELA remedial purpose; jury trial favored)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (FELA remedial scope; safety devices)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (pre-1981 Fifth Circuit precedent retained)
- Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949 (11th Cir. 1992) (summary judgment standard and credibility)