224 So. 3d 572
Ala.2016Background
- Plaintiff Jeff Cottles, a Norfolk Southern track switchman, was injured on April 9, 2012, while throwing an industry track switch (Track 4) inside a Daikin plant; spikes securing the switch stand pulled loose and the switch bound, causing his injury.
- Daikin owned and maintained the plant tracks; Norfolk Southern performed periodic inspections and notified Daikin of complaints, but Norfolk Southern retained a nondelegable duty under FELA to provide a safe workplace for its employees working on third‑party premises.
- Cottles and co‑workers repeatedly reported that the Track 4 switch was "hard to throw"; Norfolk Southern’s inspector had inspected the switch about two weeks before the accident and did not throw it during that inspection.
- Expert Joe Lydick testified that the "hard to throw" condition was symptomatic of excessive lost motion and defective ties/spikes, and that a qualified inspector operating (throwing) the switch would have detected the defect prior to the accident.
- Norfolk Southern moved for summary judgment arguing (1) lack of notice of the specific defect that caused the injury (spikes working loose), and (2) that FRA regulations did not require an inspector to throw the switch at that class of track, so FRA standards preclude a broader FELA duty; the trial court granted summary judgment for Norfolk Southern.
- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that Lydick’s testimony created a genuine issue whether Norfolk Southern negligently failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace; the Court also held FRA regulations do not preclude FELA claims and are evidence of due care but not dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norfolk Southern presented no evidence of negligence as a matter of law and was entitled to summary judgment | Cottles: repeated reports that switch was hard to throw + expert testimony that this symptom should have prompted an inspector to operate the switch and discover the defect create a triable issue | Norfolk Southern: no notice of the specific defect (spikes coming loose); inspector’s visual inspection complied with FRA regs and did not require throwing the switch | Held: Reversed. Expert testimony created a genuine issue whether Norfolk Southern should have conducted a more probing inspection and thus acted negligently under FELA |
| Whether FRA regulations preclude a FELA claim or define the exclusive federal standard of care | Cottles: FRSA/FRA regs are relevant but do not preclude a FELA negligence action; compliance is evidence of due care, noncompliance can be negligence per se | Norfolk Southern: FRSA’s uniformity scheme and FRA standards limit or define the carrier’s duty and thus preclude a broader FELA standard here | Held: FRSA/FRA do not preclude FELA claims; regulations are non‑dispositive evidence of care but do not supplant FELA duties |
| Admissibility/weight of expert affidavit opining on regulatory application | Cottles: Lydick’s affidavit was offered to clarify testimony about FRA compliance and relevance | Norfolk Southern: affidavit contained improper legal conclusions; trial court struck portions | Held: Trial court erred in striking Lydick’s affidavit in its entirety where portions bore on whether track maintenance complied with FRA standards; legal conclusions appropriately excluded but factual/regulatory-opinion portions are relevant |
| Whether Daikin’s ownership/maintenance shields Norfolk Southern from liability | Cottles: Norfolk Southern has a nondelegable FELA duty to provide a safe workplace even on third‑party premises | Norfolk Southern: because it did not own/maintain the track, liability should be limited; Daikin’s maintenance (or failure) is controlling | Held: Ownership by Daikin does not absolve Norfolk Southern of FELA duties; carrier must ensure problems it knows about are corrected and may remain liable even if third party performs maintenance |
Key Cases Cited
- Glass v. Birmingham Southern R.R., 905 So.2d 789 (Ala. 2004) (FELA negligence elements and Alabama summary‑judgment standard)
- Shenker v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 374 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1963) (railroad’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe place to work on third‑party premises)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1994) (scope and liberal construction of FELA; employer negligence as basis of liability)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2011) (FELA’s relaxed causation standard: employer negligence need only have "played any part" in producing the injury)
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1957) (historical discussion of Congress’s intent in enacting FELA and limits on common‑law defenses)
- Norfolk Southern Ry. v. Denson, 774 So.2d 549 (Ala. 2000) (discussed re: limits on judicially imposing requirements inconsistent with FRA regulatory domain)
- Fair v. BNSF Ry. Co., 238 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (FRSA/FELA are complementary; FRSA does not preclude FELA claims)