S.D. Illinois

502x178_fbf

RailRoad News

S.D. Illinois

Gibbs v Union Pacific Railroad Co.

PDF

Print

E-mail

Written by Diane Diana
Monday, 10 August 2009 10:00
Case Name: David P. Gibbs v Union Pacific Railroad Company Date Decided: July, 15, 2009 Judge: District Judge Gilbert Court: U.S.D.C. Southern District of Illinois Citation: 2009 WL 2143772 (S.D.Ill.) Background: Plaintiff, David P. Gibbs, (“Gibbs”) filed an action against defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company, (“UP”) pursuant to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act. (“FELA") Gibbs alleged that while performing his duties as a signal maintainer for UP on July 24, 2007 he suffered lower back injuries. Gibbs also alleged that he suffered cumulative trauma to his neck, left arm, and left elbow from his employment because UP constantly required him to engage in excessive, dangerous, and repetitive manual labor. UP filed a Motion to Dismiss as a Discovery Sanction on April 16, 2009. Issue: Did the Court grant UP’s Motion to Dismiss as a Discovery Sanction? Held: A Court may sanction a party for discover abuse under Federal Rule 26(g), 37, and the Court’s inherent authority. Federal Rule 26(g) states that ever discovery response must be signed and that the signature means the signing party is certifying ‘to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry… it is not interposed for any improper purpose….” Under Rule 37, a sanction is appropriate only if a specific provision is violated and a district court, with its inherent authority may dismiss a claim where the plaintiff delayed the judicial process or otherwise exhibited “contumacious conduct”. UP alleges that Gibbs committed discovery abuses by misrepresenting two material subjects, prior back injury, and a prior lawsuit against Burlington Northern Railroad and that this Court should sanction Gibbs under Rule 26, 37, and its inherent authority. This Court found that Gibb’s conduct warranted sanctions under the Court’s inherent authority. Gibbs gave misleading testimony at his deposition regarding his back injury. According to Gibbs, he had no recollection of back pain that resulted from falling 30 feet from a pole while working for Burlington Northern Railroad in 1986. However, medical records indicated following the fall, he received medical treatment for back pain. When Gibbs was examined by a doctor per UP’s request he denied any prior back injuries. Furthermore, records from Burlington Northern show that Gibbs lost almost two years of work due to an on-site injury that occurred in 1986. This Court found that it is unreasonable that Gibbs “forgot”. This Court held that Gibbs has committed discovery violation and pursuant to Federal Rule 26, the Court ordered Gibbs to pay reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. Furthermore, pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, the Court denied UP’s Motion for Dismissal as a Discovery Sanction. Comments: The Court has the inherent authority and pursuant to the Federal Rules to sanction an abusing party and even dismiss the complaint entirely as a waste of judicial resources. The plaintiff here stated he had no knowledge of a prior back injury. However, the Court found it unreasonable to “forget” because as a result from a fall while working for his previous employer, Gibbs received medical treatment for back injuries and missed approximately 2 years of work from the accident. Steve Gordon http://www.gordon-elias.com
Last Updated on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 08:02

Chris Dashner v CSX

PDF

Print

E-mail

Written by Diane Diana
Thursday, 06 August 2009 10:09
Case Name: Chris L. Dashner v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Date Decided: July 13, 2009 Judge: District Judge Gilbert Court: U.S.D.C. Southern District of Illinois Citation: 2009 WL 2060077 (S.D.Ill.) Background: Plaintiff, Chris L. Dashner (“Dashner”), filed an action against defendant, CSX Transportation Inc. (“CSX”), under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (“FELA”). CSX filed a Motion for Partial Summary judgment. In 1991, Dashner was promoted to the position of roadmaster where he spent approxiametly 12 hours a week performing physical labor. In 2005, Dashner began experiencing severe pain in his next, back, and right knee. Dashner left CSX in September due to the pain because he felt he could no longer perform his duties. CSX filed motion for summary judgement claiming that Dashner has not presented any evidence showing that CSX failed to provide a safe workplace as required under FELA. Issue: Will the court grant defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment? Held: A FELA claim cannot survive summary judgment unless the plaintiff has offered evidence proving the common law elements of negligence, including duty and breach. A railroad has a general duty to its employees to provide a safe workplace and when determining whether a railroad breached that duty the standard of care is that of a prudent person. Moreover, under FELA, negligence is not established unless the plaintiff shows the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe working conditions. After viewing the record this Court found that Dashner, after making all reasonable inferences in his favor, provided the Court with evidence of circumstances a reasonably prudent person would foresee as potentially harmful. Dashner described several strenuous he performed as assistant and roadmaster. One task required Dashner to walk through rock that was shifting and rolling while he climbed over piles of railroad ties. Moreover, he testified he repetitively used a pick to remove mud from the tracks. Also, Dashner testified he complained several times to supervisors to put piles of rock in a different area so that he did not have to walk on the rocks while using a pick. Therefore, CSX had constructive and actual notice of an unsafe working condition because a reasonable prudent person would foresee these circumstances as an unsafe and potentially harmful. This Court found there are genuine issues of material fact whether CSX had notice of the unsafe conditions leading to Dashner’s injuries and therefore, summary judgment was denied. Comments: To win on summary judgment the moving party must show that based upon the evidence, construed in favor of the nonmoving party, that there are not genuine issues of material fact and that the court must rule in favor of the moving party as a matter of law. Here, the genuine issue of material fact is whether CSX should have known or had actual notice of the unsafe working condition Dashner was allegedly subject to. Therefore, their motion of summary judgment was denied. Steve Gordon http://www.gordon-elias.com
Last Updated on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 08:10

Like it? Share it!