509 F. App'x 706
10th Cir.2013Background
- Volner worked for Union Pacific about 5.5 years in various roles; in Nov 2009, while a trackman on a section gang, he allegedly injured his neck.
- He did not file an incident report immediately but told his foreman and supervisor that his neck hurt and his arm tingled.
- After consulting a neurosurgeon, he completed a personal injury report on Jan 12, 2010, with many blanks about when, where, and how the injury occurred.
- Nearly a year later, Volner filed a damages complaint asserting workplace-safety and job-demand claims; UP moved for summary judgment arguing no negligence and no injury causation.
- The district court granted summary judgment, noting Volner could not recall specific activities, tools, or conditions causing the injury, no defect or notice, no transfer requests, and no competent expert link between work and injury.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviews de novo; the court must determine whether UP was negligent and whether that negligence caused Volner’s injuries; the court agrees there was no genuine dispute and affirms the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Union Pacific negligent under FELA? | Volner asserts negligence existed due to unsafe conditions and duties. | UP contends there was no evidence of breach, foreseeability, or causation. | No, Volner failed to prove negligence. |
| Does Volner meet FELA causation once negligence is established? | Neck injury linked to job duties and cumulative trauma. | No proven negligent act; causation not shown. | Causation not reached because negligence was not shown. |
| Was summary judgment proper given the record and standards? | District court misapplied standard or required too much specificity. | Record shows no genuine issue of material fact on negligence. | Yes, summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1994) (negligence standard under FELA and need for proof of breach)
- Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 509 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2007) (relaxed causation under FELA but requires showing railroad negligence)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (inquiry into whether defendant knew or should have known of danger)
- Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 243 F.3d 255 (6th Cir. 2001) (elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation) under FELA)
- Huffman v. Union Pac. R.R., 675 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2012) (negligence requires proof of breach, causation, and damages)
- Gadsden v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 140 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998) (proper standard for evaluating FELA negligence and causation)
- Smith v. Rail Link, Inc., 697 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standards for employee claims under FELA)
- Kimzey v. Flamingo Seismic Solutions Inc., 696 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2012) (de novo standard and summary judgment considerations)