574 S.W.3d 676
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Alton Murphy worked ~30 years for Union Pacific and settled a 2007 FELA claim (alleged asbestosis/lung injury) for $20,000, signing a broad release covering "Occupational Exposures" and "any cancers...and/or death," known or unknown.
- Six years later Murphy was diagnosed with multiple myeloma and died in 2014; his wife Irene (as personal representative) sued Union Pacific in 2016 alleging toxic-exposure negligence causing the cancer and death.
- Union Pacific moved for summary judgment relying on the 2007 release and invoking 45 U.S.C. § 55 (FELA §5) defense; it argued the release validly encompassed known risks including cancer.
- Irene argued the release was void under §5 because it (1) was boilerplate and listed many contaminants without reflecting risks actually known to the parties, and (2) did not specifically mention multiple myeloma; she relied on affidavits (including her former counsel Sammons) that the prior claim was limited to asbestosis.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific, excluding portions of the affidavits (finding hearsay/opinion/privilege issues) and concluding the release was limited to occupational-exposure injuries and thus not barred by §5.
- On appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the proper standard is the Third Circuit’s "known-risk" test (Wicker) and directing the circuit court to reapply that test and to reconsider the admissibility/weight of Sammons’s affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2007 release under FELA §5 | Release is void because it is boilerplate and did not reflect risks actually known (didn’t list multiple myeloma); prior claim limited to asbestosis | Release valid because it covered occupational exposures and "cancer/death," and risks listed were within prior claim scope; parties knew risks | Court reversed SJ and remanded to apply Wicker's known-risk standard to the existing record |
| Proper legal standard for FELA release | (Implicit) release should be invalid if it goes beyond injuries actually manifested | Argues Wicker known-risk standard is applicable | Court adopts the Third Circuit's known-risk test over Sixth Circuit's known-injury rule |
| Admissibility/consideration of Sammons affidavit | Affidavit shows prior claim was limited to asbestosis and creates material fact issue | Railroad moved to strike for Rule 56(e), hearsay, opinion, privilege; court excluded affidavit below | Appellate court found exclusion improper on several grounds and directed circuit court to reconsider its admissibility and factual effect on remand |
| Burden at summary judgment on prior release validity | Murphy must show release invalid under §5 | Union Pacific argued it established entitlement via release language and supporting documents | Court held unresolved factual questions require application of Wicker on remand; SJ reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Callen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 332 U.S. 625 (1948) (upheld release in settlement as not per se void under FELA §5)
- Wicker v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 142 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1998) (approves "known-risk" standard for releases covering future injuries)
- Babbitt v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 104 F.3d 89 (6th Cir. 1997) (adopts "known-injury" rule limiting releases to injuries already manifested)
- Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 (Ark. 1996) (discusses limits on resolving credibility at summary judgment)