Lewis v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24383
| S.D. Ohio | 2011Background
- Lewis, a CSX employee for ~37 years, sues under FELA for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome allegedly caused by employment conditions.
- Case was filed 2005, transferred from E.D. Pa. to S.D. Ohio; CSX moved for summary judgment and related relief.
- Lewis relies on broad testimony and deposition evidence from CSX employees to show systemic safety failures.
- Court addressed CSX's motions to strike depositions and Markiewitz causation opinions as moot or deniable.
- Court ultimately granted CSX summary judgment on the merits, and denied the strike motions as moot/denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitations accrue under FELA; discovery rule applies? | Lewis's injury latent; discovery rule should toll accrual. | CSX argues limitations applied or discovery date established. | Not time-barred based on discovery rule; insufficient evidence of when Lewis should have discovered work-related cause. |
| Prima facie FELA case elements met? | Lewis shows injury, employment in interstate commerce, and CSX negligence causally linked. | Lewis cannot prove CSX negligence or causal link; insuff. evidence. | Lewis failed to prove negligence; summary judgment for CSX on FELA claim. |
| Adequate tools and equipment — liability basis? | CSX inadequately equipped him; older ballast regulators were unsafe. | Evidence shows equipment generally in proper working order; no notice of defect. | No genuine issue; CSX not negligent regarding tools/equipment. |
| Lack of adequate manpower/assistance — liability basis? | Overtime and understaffing made job unsafe. | Overtime alone insufficient; no evidence extended hours created unsafe environment. | No liability; insufficient evidence that lack of manpower rendered work unsafe. |
| Failure to develop/implement adequate safety program? | CSX knew of CTS risks but failed to implement comprehensive safety program. | No showing of foreseeability or specific remedial measures lacking; evidence insufficient. | Insufficient evidence of negligence; no jury question on safety-program failure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aparicio v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 84 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 1996) (FELA duty and causation standards; evidence required for foreseeability and remedial steps)
- Borger v. CSX Transp., Inc., 571 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for proving negligence under FELA; evidentiary expectations on notice)
- Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc., 509 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2007) (relaxed causation standard under FELA does not alter duty proof)
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific RR Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) (FELA causation standard: 'employer negligence played any part' in injury)
- McKennon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 897 F. Supp. 1024 (M.D. Tenn. 1995) (summary judgment on safety-duty issues where no evidence of unreasonable unsafe conditions)