CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court rightfully sided with Norfolk Southern in a lawsuit.
Ronald Blackburn appealed the Feb. 26, 2020, order of Mingo Circuit Court in which it granted summary judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern Railway Company
In June of 2018, Blackburn filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that an injury he experienced during the course of his employment on May 18, 2016, was caused by "the carelessness and negligence of" Norfolk Southern.
The petitioner alleged that the respondent violated theFederal Employers’ Liability Act and sought $4 million in damages. The respondent denied any liability.
The circuit court concluded that FELA did not create a liability standard so absolute that it ensured every claim asserted to summary judgment.
"Upon our review, we find that this case is comparable to Gardner," the decision states. "In that case, appellant William Gardner, a road brakeman employed by CSX Transportation, Inc., was injured when the locomotive in which he was riding struck a vehicle that had stalled on the railroad tracks."
The appellant, in that case, filed a lawsuit against CSX, alleging CSX violated FELA “by failing to install a cab seat without a metal hinge.”
" Following the presentation of appellant’s evidence, CSX made amotion for a directed verdict, arguing that appellant had 'failed to establish, prima facie, that CSX was negligent with regard to the existence of the metal hinge on the cab seat and further, that CSX could not reasonably foresee appellant’s injury, as required under the FELA,'" the decision states.
Like the appellant in Gardner, the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence that the respondent breached its duty of care to petitioner.
"Petitioner produced no evidence that problems had been reported with the sanding equipment prior to his injury or that the locomotive or sanding equipment were malfunctioning when he was injured," the decision states. "Further, petitioner did not produce evidence demonstrating that his training, the means by which he spotted locomotives, and the means by which he was instructed to sand locomotives—including reaching or stretching to grasp a sand wand—constituted a breach of respondent’s duty of care to petitioner."
The court concluded that the petitioner did not show that the respondent acted negligently and that the circuit court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 20-0251
