Hunt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
N17C-07-069 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Richard B. Hunt worked for Union Pacific as a machinist in Roseville, CA from 1978–2014 and alleges long‑term occupational exposure to toxic substances while repairing locomotives.
- Complaint claims exposure to mineral spirits, diesel fumes/benzene, heavy metals from grinding, creosote, manganese from welding, asbestos (including brake dust), and rock dust.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or for a more definite statement under Rules 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(6) and 12(e), asserting inadequate notice of specific toxic exposures and failure to plead compliance with FELA’s statute of limitations.
- The Court evaluated notice‑pleading standards under Delaware law and special pleading challenges in toxic‑exposure cases where identification of substances may be difficult.
- The action is governed by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), which has a three‑year limitations period subject to a discovery rule for accrual.
- Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement, finding the complaint provided sufficient notice of exposures and adequately alleged timely filing under the discovery rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of toxic‑exposure pleading | Hunt identified workplace, activities, and specific categories of substances; that gives notice | Union Pacific argued allegations were too vague to frame a defense | Court: Allegations sufficiently describe location, activities, and substances to give notice and permit a response |
| More definite statement under Rule 12(e) | Complaint as whole is coherent and not so vague that a response is impossible | Defendant sought clarification of substances and exposure specifics | Court: No more definite statement required; complaint is adequate |
| Statute of limitations (FELA accrual) | Hunt alleged he discovered causation less than three years before filing (invokes discovery rule) | Union Pacific argued plaintiff must prove compliance at pleading stage | Court: Allegation of discovery within three years is sufficient at this stage; dismissal for limitations premature |
| Burden of proof on limitations at pleading stage | Plaintiff need only plausibly allege timely discovery | Defendant urged strict proof of limitations compliance now | Court: Defendant’s cited authorities concern summary judgment/trial stages; dismissal for failure to prove limitations not warranted now |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (Delaware notice pleading standard)
- Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1998) (accept well‑pleaded allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (vague factual allegations are sufficient if they give notice)
- Matson v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.R., 240 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2001) (FELA accrual/discovery rule discussion)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (discovery rule principles for accrual)
- Indus. Constructors Corp. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 15 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 1994) (defining when cause of action is discovered)