306 F. Supp. 3d 1060
C.D. Ill.2017Background
- Plaintiff Shane Jones, a BNSF engineer, was injured on December 9, 2014 while deadheading on locomotive 7162 when the train hit a rough patch near milepost 333.2 and he fell down stairs, injuring his shoulders. He was not warned of any known hazard at that location.
- BNSF's track inspection regime included frequent visual inspections, geometry-car inspections (including VTI measurements), and a repeat Rough Track Report system that automatically slow-ordered sections with repeated rough-track reports. The section near milepost 333 had repeated reports and slow orders in 2014 and was identified for major repair work.
- Geometry-car inspection on November 19, 2014 showed no deviations from the applicable FRSA/BNSF thresholds; some inspection records near the incident months reflect reports of rough track and subsequent inspections that sometimes found mud holes causing deviations less than the two-inch threshold for mandatory slow orders under FRSA/BNSF standards.
- Jones sued under FELA (45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.) and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA, 49 U.S.C. § 20701), alleging claims including negligent track maintenance/inspection, failure to warn, inadequate locomotive equipment, and violations of federal track/locomotive regulations.
- BNSF moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims, arguing (inter alia) that compliance with FRSA regulations precludes Jones’s FELA negligence claims; Jones conceded dismissal of his LIA and certain locomotive-related/res ipsa/deadheading claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FRSA/regulations preclude FELA negligence claims | Jones: FRSA does not preclude FELA; evidence supports negligence (repeated slow orders, reports, mud holes, no warning) | BNSF: Compliance with FRSA/regulations bars FELA claims when regulations subsume the subject matter | Court: FRSA does not preclude FELA claims; compliance is relevant evidence but not an absolute bar |
| Whether summary judgment should be granted on track-maintenance/inspection/failure-to-warn FELA claims | Jones: factual record (repeat slow orders, inspections, identified need for major repairs, lack of warnings) creates triable issues | BNSF: Inspections complied with FRSA; no negligence as a matter of law | Court: Denied as to FELA claims for track maintenance, inspection, and failure to warn — issues for jury remain |
| Disposition of LIA, res ipsa loquitur, and locomotive/deadheading claims | Jones: asserted multiple equipment and deadheading theories in complaint | BNSF: moved for summary judgment on these theories; Jones did not oppose those portions | Court: Granted summary judgment to BNSF on LIA claims, res ipsa, and claims related to locomotive/deadheading (Jones conceded or failed to respond) |
| Motion for leave to file reply brief in excess of page limit | Jones: opposed extra pages and sought leave to file a sur-reply if granted | BNSF: sought additional pages to address POM Wonderful argument | Court: Granted BNSF leave to file excess pages; denied need for sur-reply |
Key Cases Cited
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014) (framework for assessing whether one federal statute or its regulations preclude claims under another federal statute)
- Waymire v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2000) (pre-POM case holding FRSA regulations can preclude FELA claims when regulations fully cover the subject matter)
- Gottshall v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (FELA requires only that negligence play the "slightest" part in producing injury)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard regarding genuine disputes of material fact)
- Williams v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 161 F.3d 1059 (7th Cir. 1998) (elements of negligence under FELA)