Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00317/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00317-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 45:51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

* This matter was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF L. HANSEN, ) NO. CV S-04-0317 GEB JFM

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER*

v. ) 

)

THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN )

AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, )

a Delaware corporation, )

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff Jeff Hansen moves for partial summary judgment on

the issue of Defendant Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

Company’s (“BNSF”) liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability

Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60. Hansen asserts that BNSF is

strictly liable for damages he suffered when he slipped on oil located

on the walkway of a locomotive because the presence of oil on the

walkway violated the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”), 49

U.S.C. §§ 20701-20703, and a federal safety regulation promulgated

pursuant thereto, 49 C.F.R. § 229.113 (2004).

Case 2:04-cv-00317-GEB -JFM Document 34 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

1 Summary judgment standards are well known and will not be

repeated unless relevant to a point discussed.

2

As explained in more detail below, Hansen’s motion is denied

because he has not shown the absence of a genuine issue of material

fact as to whether oil on the walkway of the locomotive caused him to

slip and fall.

BACKGROUND

Hansen is a locomotive engineer for BNSF. On October 22,

2002, Hansen and Greg Poole constituted the crew of a train that was

directed to wait in the siding near Lookout, California. While the

train waited, Hansen tended to administrative matters related to the

train and traveled from car to car. In one of the cars, Hansen

noticed an open compartment door latch that should have been closed. 

As he approached the open compartment door, Hansen asserts that he

slipped on oil, striking his head on the locomotive engine floor,

pinning his left leg behind him, and injuring his left shoulder.

DISCUSSION 1

To obtain partial summary judgment, Hansen must show that

the oil on the walkway caused him to slip and fall. See St. Louis-San

Francisco Ry. Co. v. Mills, 271 U.S. 344, 347-348 (1926) (holding that

plaintiff bears the burden of establishing negligence under FELA). 

Causation under FELA jurisprudence requires Hansen to establish that

BNSF’s LIA violation “played any part, even the slightest, in

producing [his] injury.” Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S.

500, 506 (1957).

Hansen proffers his own deposition testimony and the

deposition testimony of Poole, who observed Hansen after the alleged

slip, to support his assertion that the oil on the walkway of the

Case 2:04-cv-00317-GEB -JFM Document 34 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

2 Hansen objects to his own deposition testimony on this point

claiming that the testimony is irrelevant under Rule 402 of the

Federal Rules of Evidence. This objection is overruled. Furthermore,

Hansen argues that BNSF mischaracterizes Bossolono’s deposition

testimony. This objection is also overruled.

3

locomotive caused him to slip. However, this evidence does not

constitute direct evidence that oil caused Hansen to fall. BNSF

controverts this evidence with evidence from which a reasonable

inference can be drawn that oil on the walkway did not cause Hansen to

slip and fall. See, e.g., Hansen Dep. 77:17-78:3 (where Hansen

testified that he did not observe oil on the walkway of the locomotive

immediately before slipping); Bossolono Dep. 21:22-22:2 (where

Bossolono, who inspected the walkway after Hansen’s fall, testified

that he did not observe “slip markings [or] boot marks that indicated

that someone may have fallen [on the walkway]”).2 Under summary

judgment jurisprudence, reasonable inferences must be drawn in the

nonmovant’s favor. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc.,

504 U.S. 451, 456 (1992).

Therefore, Hansen’s motion for partial summary judgment is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00317-GEB -JFM Document 34 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3