Case Name: Wanda Eastridge (personal representative of the estate of William H. Eastridge) v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, et al.
Date Decided: November 18, 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Tennessee
Judge: Judge Phillips
Citation: 2009 WL 4017131 (E.D.Tenn.)

Background:
This action involved an action filed by decedent, William H. Eastridge against his employer,defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSRC), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).

Eastridge contended that he developed silicosis as a result of exposure to sand while working for NSRC. Defendant’s moved for summary judgment.

Eastridge worked for NSRC nearly 30 years mostly as a locomotive engineer. Eastridge filed an action alleging that NSRC negligently caused him to develop lung disease while working for NSRC. Defendant’s first motion for summary judgment was denied by the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Alabama.

Easridge died shortly after the first motion was denied and Wanda Eastridge (“Wanda”) has been substituted as the plaintiff and this action was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee.

NSRC renewed its motion for summary judgment stating that new evidence developed after the death of Eastridge establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and NSRC are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The new evidence, including autopsy findings and affidavit testimony showed that Eastridge had idiopathic pulmonary firbrosis and interstitial lung disease with no known cause and was not related to his former employment with NSRC. Essentially, the autopsy revealed no link between Eastridge’s death and his employment.

Issue:
Did this Court grant, in light of the newly introduced evidence, NRSC’s motion for summary judgment?

Held:
The complaint alleged that NSRC violated FELA by failing to provide Eastridge a safe place to work, failing to provide him with proper safety equipment, and failing to warn him of the dangers of silica exposure.

NSRC however, now contended that there is no dispute that Eastridge’s disease had any relation to his employment. The autopsy report noted that there were “no changes of specific occupational-related lung disease”.

Further, Wanda failed to submit evidence disputing this new finding. Accordingly, this Court granted NSRC’s motion for summary judgment.

Comment:
Norfolk Southern was able to re-file their motion for summary judgment based upon findings of an autopsy that Eastridge’s autopsy showing that the cause of his death was not linked to his employment.

As such, the Court was able to hold, as a matter of law, that there were no genuine issues of material fact whether NSRC’s negligence, if any, caused in any way Eastridge’s death.

Steve Gordon