Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-19-06035/USCOURTS-ca6-19-06035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0212n.06

Case No. 19-6035

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

SHELDON CARMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE MIDDLE

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) employed 

Sheldon Carmon as a welder and, while on the job, Carmon tripped on a signal wire that was 

partially above ground, fell, and sustained serious injuries. Carmon sued CSX pursuant to the 

Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, claiming that CSX was negligent 

in its installation, inspection, and maintenance of the signal wire, and thereby failed to provide him

with a safe workplace. CSX moved for summary judgment, asserting that Carmon had no 

evidence concerning the installation of the wire, much less that it was done negligently; could not 

rebut CSX’s proffered evidence of its inspection practices; and could not show that its maintenance 

was negligent because he had no evidence that CSX had actual or constructive knowledge that this 

particular wire was out of place or posing a danger. The district court agreed, finding that Carmon 

“has not carried his burden to show that [CSX] had actual or constructive notice of the alleged 

exposed signal wire, a necessary element for his claim of negligence under FELA,” and granted 

summary judgment. Carmon v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00966, 2019 WL 

 Case: 19-6035 Document: 29-2 Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 1
Case. No. 19-6035, Carmon v. CSX Trans.

2

3857895, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2019) (“[Carmon]’s conclusory and unsupported assertions 

are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and defeat summary judgment.”). 

Carmon appealed, arguing that the district court’s assessment of the evidence was incorrect and

that he had produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine question of material fact for 

determination by a jury and to overcome summary judgment. Carmon also raises a new theory 

on appeal that he did not raise to the district court; namely, that Carmon’s coworker, who was with 

him when he tripped and fell, had seen the exposed wire but had failed to warn Carmon and, 

Carmon argues, that failure was negligence imputable to CSX. But for “rare circumstances,” 

which are neither argued nor present in this case, we do not consider arguments raised for the first 

time on appeal. Swanigan v. FCA US LLC, 938 F.3d 779, 787 (6th Cir. 2019). 

After carefully reviewing the law, the arguments before the district court, and the record 

evidence, we conclude that the district court correctly assessed the proffered evidence and 

correctly applied the law to it. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no 

useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

 Case: 19-6035 Document: 29-2 Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 2