916 F.3d 619
7th Cir.2019Background
- On Sept. 22, 2013 Ruark, a Union Pacific machine operator, was sprayed with hot hydraulic fluid from a rail drill while operating and hooking up the drill; he alleged injury and filed a FELA suit.
- Ruark had physically connected and operated the drill throughout the day and admitted he exercised partial control (hooking hoses, clamping, moving the lever).
- Ruark proceeded solely on a res ipsa loquitur theory under FELA, arguing the accident itself warranted an inference of the railroad’s negligence.
- The district court denied a pretrial continuance/reopening of discovery after Ruark’s original counsel withdrew while Ruark was incarcerated; replacement counsel did not later move to reopen discovery.
- At trial the court concluded Ruark failed to meet prerequisites for res ipsa (exclusive control and absence of plaintiff contribution) and granted Union Pacific judgment as a matter of law.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: res ipsa was inapplicable because Ruark had control that could have caused the accident; the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion and caused no prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res ipsa loquitur could be used to infer railroad negligence under FELA | Ruark: res ipsa applies; exclusive control need not be absolute and railroad has non-delegable duty to provide safe equipment | Union Pacific: res ipsa inapplicable because plaintiff had partial/operative control and thus other causes (including plaintiff’s actions) could have produced the accident | Court: Res ipsa not allowed—Ruark exercised sufficient control that other causes could explain the injury, so plaintiff failed to meet prerequisites |
| Whether plaintiff’s involvement in operating the drill precludes the exclusive-control element of res ipsa | Ruark: participation does not automatically bar res ipsa; Colmenares supports application despite shared control | Union Pacific: active operation and hookup by Ruark means instrumentality was not exclusively controlled by railroad | Held: Participation that could have contributed to the accident precludes res ipsa unless plaintiff first eliminates that possibility; Ruark did not do so |
| Whether FELA’s relaxed standard makes res ipsa easier or renders employer automatically liable | Ruark: FELA lowers standard and supports jury submission on minimal evidence | Union Pacific: FELA is remedial but does not convert employer into insurer; plaintiff still must present evidence on negligence elements or meet res ipsa prerequisites | Held: FELA’s lowered threshold does not eliminate substantive prerequisites for res ipsa or permit automatic inference of employer negligence |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a continuance/reopening discovery after counsel change | Ruark: need for additional discovery and time after counsel substitution justified continuance | Union Pacific: identities were known earlier; delays were long and no timely motion to reopen was filed later | Held: No abuse of discretion—court reasonably managed docket, offered opportunity to move later, and plaintiff did not show prejudice from denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jesionowski v. Boston & M. R. R., 329 U.S. 452 (doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and exclusive-control requirement)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (FELA is remedial but not a workers’ compensation statute; employer liability requires negligence)
- Robinson v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 131 F.3d 648 (res ipsa prerequisites and plaintiff participation analysis)
- Colmenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Ins. Co., 807 F.2d 1102 (discussing res ipsa where responsibility is shared or nondelegable duties exist)
- Green v. CSX Transp., Inc., 414 F.3d 758 (FELA plaintiff must still present evidence creating genuine issue on negligence elements)