Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-09-03835/USCOURTS-ca6-09-03835-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Appellee
James D. Szekeres
Appellant

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of

Kentucky, sitting by designation.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 10a0247p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

JAMES D. SZEKERES,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

-

N

No. 09-3835

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

No. 08-01153—Ann Aldrich, District Judge.

Argued: June 10, 2010

Decided and Filed: August 16, 2010 

Before: GILMAN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; THAPAR, District Judge.*

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Robert B. Thompson, HARRINGTON, THOMPSON, ACKER &

HARRINGTON, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Joseph John Santoro,

GALLAGHER SHARP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert B.

Thompson, Laurence C. Acker, HARRINGTON, THOMPSON, ACKER &

HARRINGTON, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Joseph John Santoro, Holly M.

Olarczuk-Smith, GALLAGHER SHARP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

1

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 1
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 2

_________________

OPINION

_________________

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff James Szekeres (Szekeres) appeals

from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant CSX

Transportation, Inc. (CSX) in this action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability

Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C.

§ 20701. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. 

I

The district court summarized the facts:

Szekeres was hired as a brakeman for CSX on June 7, 1967. In

July 2005, Szekeres regularly worked on a local CSX freight operation

that runs from Cleveland, Ohio to Valley City, Ohio and back. The

operation includes multiple stops along the route. Szekeres was working

this route on the date of his injury.

On January 4, 2006, Szekeres reported to CSX’s Clark Avenue

office in Cleveland. The outdoor conditions were cold with a misting

rain, but not cold enough for snow and ice. Engineer Matthew Ashby

(“M. Ashby”), conductor Larry Ashby (“L. Ashby”), and trainmaster

John Whittenberger (“Whittenberger”) joined Szekeres as crew members

for part of that day’s run. Although a restroom was available at CSX’s

Clark Avenue office, Szekeres does not remember using the restroom at

that location. The train departed Cleveland with two locomotives, each

of which was equipped with a restroom, including a retention tank toilet.

From Cleveland to the first stop in Parma, Ohio, Szekeres rode on the

second locomotive while the rest of the crew rode on the lead

locomotive. Szekeres did not use the restroom located on the second

locomotive.

Once the train arrived in Parma, the crew removed the second

locomotive from the train, and Whittenberger departed with the removed

locomotive. A CSX office building with a restroom was available to

employees at the Parma stop, but Szekeres does not recall using the

restroom at that location. The train left Parma bound for Valley City

with Szekeres riding on the lead locomotive, which was the only

remaining locomotive. During the trip from Parma to Valley City,

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 2
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 3

Szekeres did not need to use the restroom and did not inspect the

locomotive’s restroom.

Once the train arrived in Valley View, the crew had to turn the

train around to return north to Cleveland. This process required a

member of the crew, here Szekeres, to exit the locomotive and throw the

switch to get the train back on the main line tracks. At some point

between arriving in Valley View and exiting the locomotive to switch the

track, Szekeres visually inspected the restroom on the locomotive.

Szekeres claims the restroom was unsanitary because of an unspecified

chemical odor and a dirty toilet seat, both of which prevented him from

using the restroom onboard the locomotive. Szekeres claims that he

alerted M. Ashby and L. Ashby as to the restroom’s condition, but there

is no evidence that either party checked the restroom. 

After visually inspecting the locomotive’s restroom, Szekeres

exited the locomotive and walked to the switch. The walkway behind the

switch, where Szekeres stood to operate the switch, was muddy, and

Szekeres accumulated mud on his boots. He threw the switch and turned

to walk up an inclined embankment to privately relieve himself among

trees at the top. Like the walkway, the embankment was also muddy.

Szekeres slipped while ascending the embankment and twisted his knee,

allegedly injuring it. He claims that he slipped as a result of the mud that

had accumulated on his boot from the muddy walkway behind the

switch. He returned to the locomotive where he relieved himself next to

the tracks. Szekeres boarded the train, returned to the Clark Avenue

office, and reported the incident to a supervisor. He wrote a hand-written

statement on the date of the incident and filed an official incident report

six days later.

District Court Record Entry (R.) 31 at 1-3 (Dist. Ct. Memorandum & Order entered

7/2/09).

A

This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.

Campbell v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 600 F.3d 667, 671 (6th Cir. 2010).

Claims brought under the LIA, formerly the Boiler Inspection Act (BIA), are actionable

under the FELA. The FELA, 45 U.S.C. § 51, provides in pertinent part:

Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between

any of the several States or Territories . . . shall be liable in damages to

any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 3
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 4

commerce . . . for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from

the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such

carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence,

in its . . . engines, . . . track, roadbed, . . . or other equipment.

Also relevant to our analysis is the explanation of FELA liability found in Randy

J. Sutton, Annotation, Construction and Application of Federal Employers’ Liability Act

(FELA), §§ 1 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51 et seq.– U.S. Supreme Court Cases, 29 A.L.R.

FED. 2D 1, § 2 (2008):

Contributory negligence of an injured employee under FELA does not

preclude a judgment for the employee, but the damages are to be

diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence

attributable to such employee, but no such employee shall be held to

have been guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the

common carrier shall have violated any statute enacted for the safety of

employees that contributed to the injury or death of such employee (45

U.S.C.A. § 53). Similarly, assumption of risk is not a bar to recovery

where the injury resulted in whole or in part from the carrier’s negligence

or where the injury or death resulted from the violation of a safety statute

by the carrier (45 U.S.C.A. § 54). . . . 

. . . . 

In several cases the [Supreme] Court decided that violations of

the Safety Appliance Acts, Boiler Inspection Act [now the LIA], and

other statutes intended to promote safety were actionable under FELA,

in some cases without any proof of negligence, and application of those

Acts operated to prevent the defense of contributory negligence in FELA

actions . . . .

B

The LIA, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq., provides in pertinent part:

§ 20701. Requirements for use

A railroad carrier may use or allow to be used a

locomotive . . . on its railroad line only when the

locomotive . . . and its parts and appurtenances --

(1) are in proper condition and safe to operate without

unnecessary danger of personal injury;

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 4
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 5

(2) have been inspected as required under this chapter

and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of

Transportation under this chapter; and

(3) can withstand every test prescribed by the Secretary

under this chapter.

A violation of the LIA is negligence per se under the FELA. Mickler v. Nimishillen and

Tuscarawas Ry. Co., 13 F.3d 184, 188 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Urie v. Thompson, 337

U.S. 163, 188-89 (1949)).

49 C.F.R. § 229.137 requires that locomotives be equipped with a sanitation

compartment/toilet facility that is adequately equipped. 49 C.F.R. § 229.139(a) requires

that the sanitation compartment of all lead locomotives in use be sanitary. Section 229.5

sets forth definitions of “sanitary” and “unsanitary”:

Sanitary means lacking any condition in which any significant amount

of filth, trash, or human waste is present in such a manner that a

reasonable person would believe that the condition might constitute a

health hazard; or of strong, persistent, chemical or human waste odors

sufficient to deter use of the facility, or give rise to a reasonable concern

with respect to exposure to hazardous fumes. Such conditions include,

but are not limited to, a toilet bowl filled with human waste, soiled toilet

paper, or other products used in the toilet compartment, that are present

due to a defective toilet facility that will not flush or otherwise remove

waste; visible human waste residue on the floor or toilet seat that is

present due to a toilet that overflowed; and accumulation of soiled paper

towels or soiled toilet paper on the floor, toilet facility, or sink; an

accumulation of visible dirt or human waste on the floor, toilet facility,

or sink; and strong, persistent chemical or human waste odors in the

compartment.

. . . 

Unsanitary means having any condition in which any significant amount

of filth, trash, or human waste is present in such a manner that a

reasonable person would believe that the condition might constitute a

health hazard; or strong, persistent, chemical or human waste odors

sufficient to deter use of the facility, or give rise to a reasonable concern

with respect to exposure to hazardous fumes. Such conditions include,

but are not limited to, a toilet bowl filled with human waste, soiled toilet

paper, or other products used in the toilet compartment, that are present

due to a defective toilet facility that will not flush or otherwise remove

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 5
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 6

waste; visible human waste residue on the floor or toilet seat that is

present due to a toilet that overflowed; an accumulation of soiled paper

towels or soiled toilet paper on the floor, toilet facility, or sink; an

accumulation of visible dirt or human waste on the floor, toilet facility,

or sink; and strong, persistent chemical or human waste odors in the

compartment.

49 C.F.R. § 229.5.

C

The district court concluded that Szekeres’s allegations did not establish a breach

of CSX’s absolute duty under the LIA, noting that 

Szekeres’ general allegations concerning the condition of the restroom

fail to establish the existence of a CFR violation . . . . Without specific

statements of fact supporting his allegations, Szekeres has failed to create

a genuine issue of material fact. See Barry v. CSX Transp., Inc., No.

5:05CV2073 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 2006) (finding that plaintiff’s mere

assertion that a locomotive engine was improper and unsafe was not

enough to withstand summary judgment).

R. 31 at 7. 

Szekeres asserts that he presented a viable claim under both the LIA and 49

C.F.R. §§ 229.137 and 229.139 because his deposition testimony established that the

locomotive’s sanitation facility was unsanitary as defined in the CFR. He contends that

had CSX provided a sanitary toilet facility, he would have used it, thus obviating the

need to urinate outside, which led him to slip on the incline and injure his knee.

Szekeres contends that the district court failed to view the facts in a light most favorable

to him by not considering his uncontradicted deposition testimony regarding the

condition of the toilet facility.

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 6
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 7

1

This court noted in Richards v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 330 F.3d 428, 437 (6th

Cir. 2003):

Courts in . . . FELA and BIA [predecessor to the LIA] cases . . . should

focus on whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the defective

appliance played any part, even the slightest, in bringing about the

plaintiff’s injury. This means that if a reasonable jury could find that the

plaintiff’s injury “was within the risk created by” the defective appliance,

the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial should be preserved. For example, if as

a result of a defective appliance a plaintiff is required to take certain

actions and he or she is injured while taking those actions, the issue of

causation generally should be submitted to a jury.

We agree with Szekeres that the district court failed to view the facts and

reasonable inferences therefrom in his favor. Szekeres testified that the locomotive toilet

facility was “dirty” and “unusable,” was “Just dirty and smelly . . . they’re old

locomotives and they’re not kept up,” that the toilet seat was “dirty,” and that “[y]ou

have a chemical smell. It’s just not a nice place and you don’t know what you can catch

out of it.” Szekeres did not simply describe the toilet facility as “unusable.” Rather, he

provided two specific details: 1) that the toilet seat was dirty, and 2) that there was a

chemical smell. The first detail gives rise to an inference that there was “a significant

amount of filth, trash, or human waste” present such that a reasonable person might

believe it constituted a health hazard, particularly when read in tandem with Szekeres’s

statement that “you don’t know what you can catch out of it.” The second detail

supports the conclusion that there was a “strong, persistent, chemical . . . odor sufficient

to deter use of the facility,” given that Szekeres chose not to use the onboard toilet

facility and instead opted to urinate outside. 

Szekeres’s testimony is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See

Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477, 483 (1947) (holding that a plaintiff’s testimony

about the inefficiency of railroad equipment “is such substantial evidence of inefficiency

as to make an issue for the jury.” (citation omitted)); Richards, 330 F.3d at 433 (“Trial

judges should not rule out plaintiffs’ opinions as to why appliances functioned

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 7
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 8

inefficiently, where the plaintiffs’ opinions are based on their experience and perceptions

at the time of their accident.”).

The district court properly observed that Federal Railroad Administration

regulations allow for use of chemicals to clean sanitation compartments. See 49 C.F.R.

§ 229.139(b)(3). But to conclude that the chemical smell Szekeres testified to was from

a cleaning chemical requires weighing the evidence and construing inferences contrary

to Szekeres’s testimony, neither of which is permitted at the summary judgment stage.

The district court’s observation that the toilet facility was inspected on December 10,

2005, and January 10, 2006, and that no problems were noted, is likewise not outcome

determinative at the summary judgment stage. These inspections do not definitively

establish the condition of the locomotive toilet facility on January 4, 2006, the day of the

accident. We thus conclude that Szekeres provided sufficient evidence to survive

summary judgment on the issue whether the toilet facility was sanitary.

2

CSX asserts that even if Szekeres had established a defect with the toilet facility,

the causal connection between the alleged defect and injury is “too tenuous to impose

absolute liability upon CSX as a matter of law.” CSX maintains that although Szekeres

could have urinated anywhere in the rural area and admitted that his job duties did not

require that he walk up the incline, he chose to walk up a “real soft” muddy incline to

get to a more private area. 

On the question of causation, courts “focus on whether a reasonable jury could

conclude that the defective appliance played any part, even the slightest, in bringing

about the plaintiff’s injury.” Richards, 330 F.3d at 437 (emphasis in original). Although

this is a close question, we conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis for a

reasonable jury to conclude that Szekeres’s injury “was within the risk created by” the

unsanitary toilet facility. With the toilet facility being “unusable,” Szekeres had no

available indoor facility and was left to relieve himself outside. As James Arton,

Szekeres’s expert, stated in his affidavit, railroad employees typically “walk[] up the

incline to seek privacy to relieve [themselves]” when other “toilet facilities are

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 8
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 9

unavailable.” Szekeres testified that he slipped from accumulated mud on his boots

from both the area behind the switch and from climbing the embankment, so there is a

direct tie between his inability to use the onboard toilet facility and his accident. 

We thus conclude that the district court improperly granted summary judgment

on Szekeres’s LIA and C.F.R. claim.

II

Szekeres argued below that on January 4, 2006, he was assigned to work as a

conductor and required to walk on the ground to operate railroad ground switches, that

he sustained injury after being caused to step in mud, and that CSX thereby breached its

duty to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work. Szekeres asserted that CSX

was also negligent in failing to use reasonably safe methods and procedures with regard

to maintenance of the ground area where he was required to walk in performing his

duties, in failing to properly inspect the area alongside the track when ordinary

inspection would have disclosed that mud was present which could have been properly

covered with walking ballast, and in failing to cover the mud with walking ballast when

CSX knew or should have known and foreseen that trainmen like him would be in

jeopardy of injury while performing their duties working in the area. 

A

CSX’s summary judgment motion argued that it did not have notice of the

allegedly unsafe working condition (mud around the switch Szekeres was operating and

working around on January 4, 2006) and thus Szekeres’s injury was not foreseeable.

The district court agreed and granted CSX summary judgment, concluding that Szekeres

failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence under the FELA. See Adams v. CSX

Transp., Inc., 899 F.2d 536, 539 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that a FELA plaintiff asserting

a cause of negligence against his employer must “prove the traditional common law

elements of negligence: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation”); Miller v.

Cincinnati, New Orleans & Tex. Pac. Ry. Co., 317 F.2d 693, 695 (6th Cir. 1963)

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 9
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 10

(holding that actual or constructive notice to the railroad must be established under the

FELA).

B

The law is clear that notice under the FELA may be shown from facts permitting

a jury to infer that the defect could have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable

care or inspection: 

Under familiar law, defendant could not be convicted of negligence,

absent proof that such defect was known, or should or could have been

known, by defendant, with opportunity to correct it. 56 C.J.S. Master

and Servant § 244, p. 1000. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Byers, 149 F.667, 669

(C.A. 6, 1907); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Collins, 235 F.2d 805, 809

(C.A. 4, 1956) []. This rule is applicable to FELA actions where

negligence is essential to recovery. The establishment of such an

element, however, may come from proof of facts permitting a jury

inference that the defect was discovered, or should have been discovered,

by the exercise of reasonable care or inspection. 56 C.J.S. Master and

Servant § 248, p. 1002. . . . 

Miller, 317 F.2d at 695 (some internal citations omitted). The district court properly

noted that notice under the FELA may be either actual or constructive; however, it did

not address Szekeres’s argument and proofs supporting his contention that CSX had

constructive notice of the allegedly unsafe conditions around the switch he operated and

worked around on January 4, 2006. 

C

Szekeres contends that the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to him

clearly establishes a triable issue of material fact as to whether CSX knew that: 1) there

was a long-standing mud condition in the vicinity of the Valley City switch; 2) mud is

recognized as a slipping hazard in the railroad industry; 3) walkway stone should be used

to cover dirt in the ground areas around switches; and 4) company rules required

Szekeres to be standing 10 or 30 feet behind the Valley City Switch, in an obvious area

of dirt and mud. Szekeres contends that these facts alone established that CSX knew or

should have known of the unsafe ground conditions that led to his injury.

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 10
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 11

1

Arton has more than 30 years of experience as a railroad operations manager, including

experience in railroad operations and safety. His experience includes positions as yardmaster, trainmaster,

and terminal superintendent, and he is familiar with railroad industry standards regarding use of ballast in

the ground areas surrounding railroad switches, as well as common behavior of train service employees

assigned to industrial switching. R. 23-6 at 1-2 (Arton affidavit). 

We agree with Szekeres that he presented sufficient evidence of the first three

points. Photos of the switch and surrounding areas, some of which were taken on the

same day that Szekeres was injured, depict that there was some walking stone on the

ground on either side of the switch (in the walkway area parallel to the track, which

several CSX supervisory employees testified was, indeed, a walkway used by railroad

employees), but very little behind the switch, where Szekeres actually stood while

working and from where he testified that mud accumulated on his boots that contributed

to him slipping on the incline and injuring his knee. Various CSX supervisory

employees testified that the area behind the switch was mostly dirt, with little walking

stone. It is undisputed that on January 4, 2006, the temperature was in the 40s and that

it had been raining/misting all day. Trainmaster Whittenberger, Szekeres’s supervisor,

testified that he had been in the vicinity of the switch within 90 days before Szekeres’s

injury, and that the area looked the same as it did on January 4, 2006, when Szekeres

was injured.

On the second point, several CSX supervisors testified that mud is, or can be, a

slipping hazard, as did Szekeres. It is clear that Szekeres had to stand in the area behind

the switch to perform his work responsibilities--throwing the switch.

On the third point, the report of James Arton, Szekeres’s expert,1

 stated:

CSXT failed in its non-delegable duty to use ordinary care to provide

Szekeres with a reasonably safe place to work. CSXT is required to

provide Szekeres with a reasonably safe place to work and is required to

correct unsafe conditions and practices.

CSXT failed to maintain the area in the vicinity of the mainline

switch to Liverpool Coil at Valley City, Ohio in a safe condition. The

location where Szekeres’s duties required him to walk, stand and operate

the switch was not provided with proper walking stone to eliminate the

mud condition that existed at the locations where Szekeres was required

to perform service in the normal course of his duties. Szekeres stated

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 11
No. 09-3835 Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Page 12

(Szekeres deposition page 29, lines 1-14 and photographs) that his boots

became encrusted with mud at this location and when he attempted to

walk up the slight incline the muddy boots contributed to his injury.

Szekeres walking up the incline to seek privacy to relieve himself

is reasonable and consistent when an employee in the field needs to

relieve themselves [sic] and toilet facilities are unavailable.

CSXT should have identified and corrected the unsafe condition

at the switch that caused the injury to Szekeres, his injury could have

been prevented. [R. 24-6 at 2.]

Szekeres thus presented sufficient evidence of CSX’s constructive notice of the muddy

conditions surrounding the switch to survive summary judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 Case: 09-3835 Document: 006110706676 Filed: 08/16/2010 Page: 12