JOANNE JONES, QUINCY DWAYNE JONES, CHRIS JONES, and ANTHONY JONES v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
508 S.W.3d 159
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Arnold Jones died in 2010 when a Union Pacific train struck his pickup at a rural Butler County crossing; his survivors sued for wrongful death alleging the crossing was ultrahazardous and warnings were inadequate.
- Union Pacific asserted federal preemption as an affirmative defense, which applies if federally prescribed and federally funded warning devices were installed at the crossing.
- At summary judgment the Railroad relied on a 1979 PSC order/contract to install federally funded reflectorized crossbucks statewide and various agency and company documents purporting to show installation and payment—but did not expressly state in its SUMF that federal funds were paid for work at this specific crossing.
- Plaintiffs controverted the Railroad’s SUMF as relying on unauthenticated hearsay; the Railroad later repackaged many supporting documents and submitted certifications and an affidavit late in the process.
- The trial court ruled federal funds were expended on the crossbucks and granted summary judgment for the Railroad; the court of appeals reversed, holding the Rule 74.04(c) summary judgment record did not establish beyond genuine dispute that federal funds were spent at this crossing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Railroad proved federal funding at the specific crossing (element of preemption) | Jones: Railroad failed to prove federal monies were spent at this crossing; SUMF relies on inadmissible hearsay | Union Pacific: 1979 PSC order, contract, tabulation, bills and agency correspondence permit the inference federal funds paid for crossbucks at the crossing (citing O’Bannon) | Reversed: Record under Rule 74.04(c) did not show beyond genuine dispute that federal funds were spent at this crossing; summary judgment improper |
| Whether documents submitted in support of SUMF were admissible | Jones: Documents were unauthenticated hearsay and not admissible to support summary judgment | Union Pacific: Submitted certifications and later affidavits to authenticate records | Held for Jones: Certifications/exhibits failed to cure hearsay/authentication defects; some certifications were irregular or could not be authenticated |
| Whether late affidavits/deposition testimony can expand the Rule 74.04(c) record | Jones: New facts outside the original SUMF cannot be considered absent amendment | Union Pacific: Late submissions (Hesse affidavit/deposition) established funding facts | Held for Jones: Facts must enter the summary judgment record via Rule 74.04(c) numbered paragraphs/responses; Railroad did not amend its SUMF and cannot rely on belated additions |
| Standard and scope of appellate review on summary judgment evidentiary rulings | Jones: Appellate court should review de novo whether Rule 74.04(c) record supports summary judgment | Union Pacific: Trial court evidentiary rulings deserve deference | Held for Jones: Review is de novo; appellate court may decide admissibility in the context of the Rule 74.04(c) record |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Bannon v. Union Pacific R.R., 169 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming summary judgment where record strongly supported that federally funded crossbucks were installed at the accident crossing)
- Lackey v. Iberia R-V Sch. Dist., 487 S.W.3d 57 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (explaining Rule 74.04(c) numbered-paragraphs-and-responses framework governs summary judgment record)
- ITT Comm. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. 1993) (articulating de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- CACH, LLC v. Askew, 358 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. banc 2012) (business-records/hearsay limits and custodian testimony requirements for admissibility)
- Custer v. Wal-Mart Stores E.I., LP, 492 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing proper support for SUMF and common summary judgment pitfalls)