NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0728n.06 No. 09-1017 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

DO UG L AS WI L L I AM S, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. GRAND TRUNK WES TE RN RAI L ROAD, I NCORPORATED, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FRO M THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B EF OR E: MA RTI

N, RO GE RS, a

nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. ROGERS, Ci rcuit Judge. Plaintiff, a railroa d worke r who wa s injured when he slipped on ic e and sn ow in the c ours e of his du tie s, su e d h is e mpl oy e r u nd e r t he F e de ra l E mpl oy e rs ’ L ia bil ity Ac t

. H e a l l e g e s t h a t t h e e mp l o y e r w a s n e g l i g e n t b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t r e m o v e s n o w f r o m t h e a r e a

in whichh e w a s w o r

k in g an d b e c a u s e ma lf u n c ti o n in g e qu ip me n t c o n tr ib u te d to h is in ju r y . Pl a in tiff has not prese nted suffic ient eviden ce o f neglig ence reg ardingeither snow- remova l policies or the alleg edly defe ctive equipment. He has also failed to pre sent sufficie nt evidence that the def endant had notice of

any specific dang erous c ondition or of any equipment failure. We theref ore a ffirm the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt t o d e fe nd ant. B ACKG ROUND I n J anuar y of 2005, plaintiff Doug las Wil liams was an e mploy ee of Gra nd Trunk Western Railway (Gra nd Trunk). On J anuar

y 8, Wil liams was assig ned to drive an eng ine from F lat RockNo. 09-1017

W illiams v. Grand Trunk W . R.R.

- 2 - Ya rd to S tanle y

Ya rd in Wal lbr idg e , Oh io, c on ne c t an e ng ine to t hr e e oth e r e ng ine s th e re , a nd us e the four c onnecte d eng ines to take a train bac k to Flat Rock Ya rd. Ac cordingto Wi lliams, it had snowed that ni gh t , an d t h er e was ice on top of snow in Stanley Yar d. Connecting the eng ines

re qu i re d W i l l i am s t o s t an d

o nt h e r ai l ro adt ra ckb edb et w e e n t h e t w o en gi n es an d t o p l u g a l ar ge

e le c tr ic a l ca

ble sim ila r to an e xten sio n co rd , ca lle d a n “ MU ” c a

ble , o ri g inatin g fr om o ne e ng ine int o the other e ng ine. The MU cable s are larg e—we ighing approximately fiftee n to twenty pounds—and to p lugthe m in , o ne mus t op e n a sp ri ng -l oa de d co ve r an d the n co nn e c t the c or d to the plu g be ne a th the cove r. Will iams testified that on J anuar y 8, the spring -loade d cover was not functioningon one of the plu g s, su c h th a t the plu g wa s ful l of sno w, and he ha d to re mov e the sn owbe fo re plu g g ingin the MUc a

ble . H e te sti fi e d th a t, a ft e r r e mov ingthe sn ow , “ a s [he ] wa s tr y ing to p us h th is M U C a

ble into the rec eiving rec eptac le, on the t hird locomotive

. . . [he] slipped.” Willi a ms the n s te a die d h is fe e t, d ugmor e sn owou t of

the re c e pta c le , a

nd su c c e ssf ull y c on ne c ted t

he MUc a

ble . Wil liams alleg es that his slip caused him lowe r back injuries that have preve nted him f rom returning to work since January

28, 2005. Stanley Yar d is not owned by

defe ndant Gr an d Trunk, but rather by CSX Transportation. Evidence reg ardingthe snow-r emoval and r elated policie s at Stanley Ya rd comes from the de po sit ion s o f t

wo CSX e mpl oy e e s, Art hu r Ma us t and Eu g e ne Pay

ne . M a us t te sti fi e d th a t CSX proce dures in Stanley

Yar d require d snow remova l from the roadw ay s and the switching leads, a s neede d. He stated that CSX did not r eg ularly remove snow from the trac ks or near by are as, but that employ ees do w alk in these area s. Maust did not believe that removingsnow from such a rea s wasNo. 09-1017

W illiams v. Grand Trunk W . R.R.

- 3 - rea sonable or ne cessa

ry . He further testified that railroa d employ ees working in Stanley Yar d wer e provided with ra dios and nonslip f ootwear , and that if a

n employ ee notice d an unsaf e condition, the employ ee c ould radio trac k depar tment personnel who would apply salt and g rave l to the slippery

are a as ne cessa

ry . Wil liams was not wea ring his rubber boots and did not advise any one re g arding the icy g round conditions or t he snow-filled cover . Pay ne testified that it was not unusual f or there to be snow on the g round in J anuar y , and that whe n there was snow, CSX removed the snow f rom the ro a dw ay s and

the sw itc he s. F or

the re ma ind e r o f the ra il y ard , e mpl oy e e s w e re pr ov ide d w ith non-sl ip f

o o tw e ar . Pa

y n e d id n o t r e c a ll an y

c o mp la in ts o r

an y p r o b le ms r e late d

to e mp lo y ees walking on snow, nor had he ever seen snow in a

n M U b o x o r hear d complaints reg ardingsuch a pr ob le m. Wil liams filed s u i t against Gra nd Trunk in district court on Apr il 7, 2007, pursuant to the Fe dera l Employ ers’ L iability Act (F EL A), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. Gra nd Trunk moved f

or summary judgme nt, and on Dec ember 10, 2008, the district c ourt issued a wr itten order g ranting the motion, holding that “ (1) De fenda nt was no t neg lige nt; and (2) De fenda nt had no notice of

any unsafe condition claimed by

plaintiff.” Wil liams tim ely appea led on J anuar

y 5, 2009. A N A L Y SIS A. Snow Rem oval Wil liams’s snow-re moval claim could be c onstrued in two way s: as arguing that CSX had ina de qu a te g e ne ra l po lic ie s, or a s arguin g the CSX did no t re sp on d re a so na bly to a sp eci fi c da ng e ro us c on dit ion

wh e re Willi a ms w a s w or kin g . Co ns tr

ue d e ith e r w ay , th e c la im f a ils

.No. 09-1017

W illiams v. Grand Trunk W . R.R.

Gr and Tr un k is re sp on sib le fo r a

ny ne g lig e nc e a t th e CSX y ard be c a us e , “ [a]s the Sup re me 1 Court and this circuit have rec og nized, a third party ’s neg lige nce in pr oviding a safe workplac e for an employ er’ s worke rs may be imputed to the employ er wher e that third party has a contractua l relationship with the employ er and the employ ee is a cting in the course of her employ ment on the third party ’s pre mises.” Rannals v. Diamond Jo Casino , 265 F.3d 442, 450 ( 6th Cir. 2001). - 4 - To the extent that W illiams a rgu es t h e inade quacy of CSX snow-re moval policies, he ha s f a i l e d t o c r e a t e a

g e n u i n e i s s u e o f

m a t e r i a l f a c tw i th r e s p e c t t o n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m u n d e r F E LA

. F E LA

1 pr ov ide s th a t “ a

ra ilr oa d h a s a

du ty to p ro vid e its e mpl oy e e s with a re a so na bly sa fe wo rk

pla c e ; th is does not mean that a ra ilroad has the duty to eliminate all workplac e dange rs, but only the duty of exerci s i n g rea sonable c are to that end.” Van Gorder v . Grand Trunk W . R.R., Inc

. , 509 F.3d 265, 26 9 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 7) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mit te d) ; see also 45 U.S.C. § 51. A railroad br eac hes this duty if it “knew, or by the ex erc ise of due car e shoul d have known, that preva lent standards of conduct we re ina dequate to protect [the plaintiff] an d s i m i l ar l y situated employ ees.” Urie v. Thompson , 337 U.S. 163, 178 (1949) (inter nal quotation marks omi tted). CSX employ ees te stified that if Wil liams f

ace d any unsafe conditions at Stanley Yar d, he could have radioe d trac k depar tment personne l, who would have remedie d any such condition. Wil liams has not provided any evidenc e to s ug g e st t

hat th is p oli c y

wa s n ot i n p la c e , o r t

hat it wo uld no t ha

ve be e n s uf

fi c ie nt t o p ro te c t hi m from any unsafe conditions if he had r adioed the tr ack de partment. CSX trainmaster Pay ne testified that he did

no t r e c a ll a

ny c omp la int s a

bo ut s no w b uil du

p o r b a d w a lki ngc on dit ion s a ro un d th e tim e that Wil liams was injured, a nd Wil liams did not produce other evidenc e sug g esting that CSX’s

snow-re moval proce dures we re ina dequate to protec t the employ ees working in Stanley Yar d. L ike th e p la in ti f

f in Van Gorder , Wil liams has “provide d no specific information to explain why [t heNo. 09-1017

W illiams v. Grand Trunk W . R.R.

Ra nn als arose under the J ones Ac t, 46 U.S.C. § 30104. 265 F.3d at 445. The standards f or 2 rec overy under the J ones Act and FELA are the same, a s “the Jones Act makes a pplicable to sea

men the substantive rec overy provisions of the older F EL A.” Miles v. Ape x Marine Corp. , 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990). - 5 - defe ndant’s conduc t] was not re asonable. ” 5 09 F.3d at 270. We have also he ld than an expert’s report was not sufficie nt to create a g enuine issue of materia l fac t where the re port was silent on “what ty pe of inspection

. . . would have be en ‘a dequate .’” Borger v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 571 F.3d 559, 567 (6th Cir. 2009). Wil liams has t hus failed to provide sufficie nt evidence for a jury to find in his favor. See V

an Gorder , 5 0 9 F. 3 d

at 2 6 8 (c i t i n g Anderson v. Li berty Lobby, Inc

. , 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)) (summary

judgme nt standard)

. The pre sent ca se is distinguishable from ca ses wher e the de fenda nt failed to re move snow from drivewa

y s or concr ete wor

k are as. See, e .g. , Rannals v. Diamond Jo Casino , 265 F.3d 442, 446 (6th Cir. 2001); McD onald v. N e. Ill. Reg’l , 2 49 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 05 1, 10 52 (N .D . I ll. 20 03 ). CSX 2 empl o y ee s testified that they did, in fact, re move snow fr om roadwa y s, and they

outlined a

rea sonable proc edu re f

or dea ling with snow-r elated da ng ers in the r est of Stanley Yar d. When Wil liams slipped, he was standing a s t ri de a r ailroad tra ck, on one stre tch of the a pproxi mately

30 to 35 miles of track w ithin S tanley Yar d. Whil e the simple f act that an employ er failed to remove snow and ice from desig nated wa lkway s or pave d roadw ay s might ra ise a triable issue of neg lige nce, the fa ilure of a railroad to remove snow or i ce from an entire r ail y ard doe s not raise such a n issue, at least whe re the railroa d has in place policies to r emedy any specific dang erous c ondition of whichNo. 09-1017

W illiams v. Grand Trunk W . R.R.

- 6 - they are g iven notice. Wil liams ha s thus f ailed to c rea

te a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t with respec t to a neg lige nce c laim reg ardingthe snow-r emoval proc edure s at Stanley Yar d. I f, instead, Williams’s claim is construed as arguing neg lige nce with r espec t to a locationspecific dang erous c ondition, he has failed to pr oduce suf ficient evidence that CSX had notice of that condition. A railroa d’s fa ilure to cure specific dang erous c onditions, i ncluding failure s to remedy conditions cre ated by

winter we ather , may

constitute neg lige nce. See, e .g. , Ba rre tt v . To le do , P e or ia & W . R.R. Co. , 3 34 F .2 d 8 03 , 8 03 -0 4 ( 7th Cir . 1 96 4) . Ade fe nd a

nt, ho we ve r, c ann ot b e he ld neg lige nt “abse nt proof that such de fec t was known, or should or c ould h av e b een know n, by defe ndant, wit h opportunity to corr ect it.” Miller v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Tex. Pac. Ry . Co. , 31 7 F .2 d 6 93 , 6 95 (6 th C ir . 1 96 3) . Wil liams h a s n ot p ro du c ed su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e su c h th a t a

re a so na ble jur y c ou ld c on c lud e that CSXkn e w o r h a d r e a so n to kn ow of the c on dit ion

of the sp e c if ic trac k on which he w as working

. Wil liams sug g ests that notice of this ty pe ca n be infe rre d from the fac t that CS X had a

n approximately

ten-foot towe r that could see most of t h e t ra ck wher e the defe ndant was working

. Wil liams, how ever , has produce d no evidenc e that any one was in the towe r at the re levant time, that anyone had obse rved the relev an t t ra ck, or that any dang erous c ondition

w o u ld h a v e b e e n v is ib le f r o m th e to w e r . N o r h a d an y o n e c o mp la in e d a b o u t th is lo cation or a ny other location as being p articula rly slippery

. I ndeed, the only person known to have obser ved the t rack was Williams, and he did not report a ny dang erous c onditions t o CSX. No re asonable jury could conc lude from these fac ts that CS X knew o r had reason to know of any location-spec ific,No. 09-1017

W illiams v. Grand Trunk W . R.R.

The doc trine of r es ipsa loquitur applies in FE L A ca ses, Che sa pe ak e & O. Ry . Co. v . S

mi th , 3 42 F .2 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 3 0 ) , b u t W i l l i a m s d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s i s s u e o n a p p e a l

. F u rthe r, thi s doctrine is not applica

ble her e beca

use Wil liams ha s not pr esente d sufficie nt e vidence to show that it w a s im pr ob a ble tha t th e re wa s any

c a us e oth e r t

ha n th e ne g lig e nc e of

the e mpl oy e r o r t

hat th is i s the kind of ac cident that does not ordina rily occur absent ne g lige nce by

the employ er. See id. - 7 - dang erous c ondition. Grand Trunk is ther efor e entitled to summar y judgme nt unde r either r eading of Willi a ms’ s sn ow -r e mov a l a lle g a tio ns . B. The M U R e c e pt ac le Wil liams has also not provided suff icient evidenc e of either neg lige nce or notice re g arding the alleg edly

defe ctive MU re cepta cle. Wil liams’s evidenc e re g ardingneg lige nce is not suffic ient beca use he ha s not pr esente d any evidenc e linking the alleg edly snow-filled MU r ece ptacle to a ny action by the def endant. He testified that he “had no idea of when [t he MU] lid was ever opened or whoeve r handle d that locomotive.” Without additi onal evidenc e, no re asonable jury could find that the def endant’ s neg lige nce w as re spon s ib le f o r th e s p r in g - lo a d e d

r e c e p ta c le ’ s b e c o ming snow- filled. 3 Fur ther, Willi ams has not produc ed any direc t evidence of notice a nd, from all ac counts, the malfunctioning MU rec eptac le prese nted a previously unknown problem. In Van Gorder , this court aff irmed the g rant of summ ar y j u d gm ent i n part be cause no witness had eve r enc ountere d the rele vant problem be fore the incident that ca used the plaintiff’s injury . 509 F.3d at 271. This court

c on c lud e d th a t th e de fe nd ant h a d n o r e a so n to kn owthat su c h a de fe c t e xiste d or that it mig ht c a us e injury

. Id. Simi larly , no witnesses in this case ha d ever seen a n MU rec eptac le bec ome jammed open by snow, and thus there is no basis on which a jury could conclude that Gra nd Trunk knew

or should have know n that this was a dang er. A s with the slippery trac k, the only

person who e verNo. 09-1017

W illiams v. Grand Trunk W . R.R.

- 8 - ob se rv e d th e a lle g e dly

ma lf un c tio nin g e qu ipm e nt wa s Williams, and he did no t noti fy any on e of thi s problem. Will iams has thus failed to produc e suff icient evidenc e t h at an y “d efect wa s known, or should or could have been know n, by defe ndant, with opportunity to c orre ct it.” Miller , 317 F.2d at 695. C ONCL US I ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt for the de fe nd ant.