Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Deborah Jackson
179 So. 3d 1037
| Miss. | 2015Background
- Jackson sued Illinois Central under FELA for her husband Charles Jackson's wrongful death from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at Illinois Central McComb shops; Ellenbecker designated as expert with a general, non-work-specific report; Illinois Central moved to strike Ellenbecker’s designation and Whites’s report as unsworn and hearsay; Jackson supplemented Ellenbecker designation with unsworn assertions read aloud, later not filed; trial court denied summary judgment and motions to strike; appellate court reversed denial and rendered for Illinois Central on grounds of inadmissible evidence and lack of proof of exposure.
- Discovery and designation timeline: Jackson named Whites (unspecified supplement) and Ellenbecker; discovery cutoff February 2014; Ellenbecker designation included a non-specific report and statements he would testify about general asbestos exposure in rail industry.
- Evidence issues: Ellenbecker’s designation and the Whites report were argued to be unsworn, hearsay, or not based on personal knowledge; supplemental response not filed; some deposition testimony suggested no personal knowledge of Charles’s exposure.
- Key evidentiary problem: no admissible, probative evidence showing Charles was exposed to asbestos at the McComb shops to support a FELA claim.
- Holding posture: Court reversed denial of summary judgment and rendered for Illinois Central; inadmissible hearsay and untimely or unsworn evidence cannot support summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ellenbecker’s designation and Whites’s report were proper summary-judgment evidence | Jackson insists designation and report create a triable issue | Illinois Central argues they are unsworn, hearsay, and not admissible | Yes; improper summary-judgment evidence barring consideration |
| Whether the supplemental Ellenbecker response could be considered | Supplemental response creates factual issues supporting exposure | Supplemental response was untimely and not filed; hearsay | No; not on file or competent for summary judgment |
| Whether there is any admissible evidence that Charles was exposed to asbestos at the McComb shops | Depositions show potential exposure and industry context | Evidence lacks personal knowledge of exposure; Dr. Whites relied on attorney statements; other coworkers lacked knowledge | No; no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for Illinois Central proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Skiwski, 529 So. 2d 184 (Miss. 1988) (sworn statements cannot be used to support summary judgment when hearsay)
- Magee v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Corp., 551 So. 2d 182 (Miss. 1989) (summary judgment evidence must be sworn)
- Trustmark Nat’l Bank v. Meador, 81 So. 3d 1112 (Miss. 2012) (material for summary judgment must be sworn)
- Brent v. Illinois Central R. Co., 133 So. 3d 760 (Miss. 2013) (FELA standard; relaxed burden of proof in FELA actions; complete absence of probative facts defeats summary judgment)
- Rivera v. Union Pac. R. Co., 378 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2004) (FELA burden and summary-judgment standard)