Welsh, P. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp
154 A.3d 386
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Paul Welsh, an Amtrak police officer, sued Amtrak under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for back injuries he said occurred on August 16, 2012 while running ~75 yards on ballast in Amtrak’s Penn Coach Yard during a surveillance/arrest.
- Welsh alleged the yard was poorly maintained, uneven, lightly lit, and contained debris, and that no pre-surveillance briefing was given. He later underwent surgery for lumbar/cervical injuries.
- Amtrak moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it. Welsh appealed the grant as to the August 16, 2012 incident (Count I).
- Welsh submitted signed but unsworn statements from three current/former Amtrak officers and photographs; the trial court refused to consider those statements as affidavits because they lacked jurats or 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 statements and rejected the photos as unauthenticated.
- The trial court also treated Welsh’s general denials to Amtrak’s motion as admissions under local summary-judgment response rules because Welsh failed to respond paragraph-by-paragraph with record citations.
- With the excluded materials and deemed admissions, the court held Welsh lacked sufficient evidence to show Amtrak’s negligence played any part, even the slightest, in causing his injury; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Welsh) | Defendant's Argument (Amtrak) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of signed but unsworn statements | Statements from three officers attest yard was unsafe and should be considered as part of the record | Statements are not affidavits under Pa.R.C.P. 76 (no jurat or §4904 language); thus not part of record for summary judgment | Affirmed: statements excluded because they did not meet affidavit requirements |
| Use of general denials in response to motion for summary judgment | Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) allows general denials in bodily-injury actions; trial court erred treating denials as admissions | Rule 1029(e) governs pleadings, not motions; local Phila.Civ.R. 1035.2 requires specific, paragraph-linked denials with record citations | Affirmed: general denials not permitted in response to summary-judgment motion; admissions deemed where proper response not given |
| Failure to authenticate and consider plaintiff’s photographs | Photos show uneven ballast, debris and support unsafe-workplace claim and create triable issue | Photos were not in the certified record and were unauthenticated; provenance not shown | Affirmed: photographs inadmissible on summary judgment for lack of authentication/provenance |
| Sufficiency of evidence under FELA to send case to jury | Employee testimony about running on ballast in darkness plus photos and officer statements show employer negligence played some part | Record contains only plaintiff’s statement he felt pain while running on ballast; no proof ballast or conditions caused herniation or constituted an unreasonably unsafe workplace | Affirmed: remaining admissible evidence insufficient under FELA standard (no proof employer negligence played any part) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerber v. Piergossi, 142 A.3d 854 (Pa. Super. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Labes v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 863 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Super. 2004) (FELA construed liberally to afford jury trial in close cases)
- Manson v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, 767 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (elements of negligence required in FELA cases)
- Kimbler v. Pittsburgh & L.E.R. Co., 331 F.2d 383 (3d Cir. 1964) (railroads owe employees a continuing duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace)