# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 36 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Sh awn Ro y al ; Re gi na Ro y al

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Mi ss ou ri & Nort he rn Arka ns as Rai lro ad Co m pa ny, Inc.; Rai lAm eri ca, In c.; Gen es ee & Wy om in g, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Tex ark an a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 6 , 20 17

Fil ed : M ay

22 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Sh awn Ro y al

, a Nor th Am eri can Rai lway Serv ic es (“ NARS”) e m pl oyee, and

hi s wife

, Reg in a Ro y al

, su ed Mi ss ou ri & Nor th er n A r k a n s as Rai lro ad Co m pa ny (“ MNA”) fo r in

juri es he su st ai ne d whi le wor ki ng on M N A ’s rai lro ad tra ck s. The y

so ug ht rel ie f pu rs ua nt to th e Fed eral Em pl oyers’ Liab il it y

Act (“ FELA”) an d u nd erArk an sa s ne gl ig en ce la w. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d MNA’s m o t i o n f or su m m ary 1

jud gm en t, an d t he Ro y al s ap pe al ed . For t he reas on s d is cu ss ed be lo w, we affi rm

.

In Feb ru ary 20 1 2

, N ARS en te red in to a Mas te r Serv ic e Agr eem en t wit h

Rai lAm eri ca Tran sp o r ta ti on Co rp or at io n (“ Rai lAm eri ca”) to pr ov id e tra ck -rel at ed

se rv ic es to Rai lAm eri ca’s affi li at ed an d su bs id ia ry rai lro ad s. At th e ti m e, MNA was

a who ll y own ed su bs id ia ry of Rai lAm eri ca. The Agr eem en t st ip ul at ed th at NARS “ is

no t an ag en t, rep res en ta ti ve , or em pl oyee of [Rai lAm eri ca] or an y of it s Rai lro ad s, bu t

rat he r i s an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or .” The Agr eem en t al so st at ed th at NARS “ sh al l

be r e s p o n s ib le fo r al l act io ns of it s em pl oyees, su bc on tra ct or s, ag en ts an d

rep res en ta ti ve s” whi le wor k i n g a t th e rai lro ad si te s an d th at Rai lAm eri ca an d it s

su bs id ia rie s ha d th e rig ht to in sp ect an d te st NARS’s wor k an d di rect NARS to m ak e

co rrec ti on s as ne ed ed

.

NARS em

pl oyed Sh awn Ro y al to op erat e a ba ll as t reg ul at or an d se nt hi m to

pe rfo rm m ai nt en an ce wor k at se ve ral di f f e r e n t rai lro ad lo cat io ns

. NARS pr ov id ed

Ro y al wit h sa fet y tra in in g an d eq ui pm en t in st ru ct io n, fu rn is he d hi s pe rs on al

pr ot ect iv e an d se rv ic e eq ui pm en t, an d was res po ns ib le fo r al l of hi s co m pe ns at io n.

Pu rs ua nt to h i s em

pl oym en t wit h NARS, Ro y al di d m ai nt en an ce wor k on MNA’s

rai lro ad tra ck s, whi ch in vo lv ed op erat in g a m ach in e th at pi ck ed up an d sp read ba ll as t,

th e st on e or m at eri al pl aced aro un d rai lro ad tra ck s th at pr o v i de s st ru ct ur al su pp or t,

dr ai na ge , an d ero si on pr ot ect io n. W hi le w o r ki ng as a NARS em pl oyee on MNA’s

rai lro ad tra ck s, Ro y al was req ui red to ab id e by Rai lAm eri ca-M NA sa fet y gu id el in es

. Fo r ex am pl e, th e sa fet y gu id el in es di rect ed NARS em pl oyees to refr ai n fro m dr ug or

al co ho l us e whi le on th e job

. Fu rth erm or e, fo r cert ai n fo rm s of rai lro ad m ai nt en an ce

wor k, th e sa fet y gu id el in es m an da te d job br ie fin gs wit h MNA em pl oyees or fo r an

MNA em pl oyee to be pr es en t. An MNA em pl oyee wou ld al so co or di na te lo cat io ns

The Hon or ab le Su sa n O. Hick ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-an d sc he du le s fo r wor k as si gn m en ts

. Non et he le ss , Ro yal’s ch ai n of co m m an d

co ns is te d on ly of NARS em pl oyees, an d NARS m ai nt ai ne d so le au t h o r i t y to

di sc ip li ne or fir e Ro y al

. W hi le Ro y al te st ifi ed th at MNA of te n to ld hi m to “ hu rry

up ,” he als o s ta te d th at MNA di d no t ru sh hi m on th e da y of th e in ci de nt an d ne ve r

di rect ed or c on tro ll ed ho w he was to pe rfo rm hi s wo rk

.

On Sep te m

be r 25

, 20 12

, Ro y al was op erat in g hi s ba ll as t reg ul at or on MNA’s

rai lro ad tra ck s w h e n hi s m ach in e pi ck ed up an d st ru ck a pi ece of “ rip -rap ,” a la rg e

ro ck m ix ed in wit h th e sm al le r ba ll as t. In cert ai n area s aro un d rai lro ad tra ck s, rip -rap

is co m m on ly pl aced fo r st ru ct ur al in te gr it y

. Howev er, rip -rap can al so be da ng ero us

be cau se if it i s pu ll ed on to th e rai lro ad tra ck s, a ba ll as t reg ul at or m ay ru n ov er it

, ab ru pt ly st op pi ng th e m ach in e an d in juri ng th e dr iv er. Ro y al of te n en co un te red rip

rap wh i l e wor ki ng on hi s ba ll as t reg ul at or ; was tra in ed to sp ot it ; an d ha d st ru ck a pi ece th ree week s pr io r, br in gi ng hi s m ach in e to a su dd en st op

. Thi s ti m e, Ro y al

st ru ck th e ri p- rap an d was th ro wn fo rward , cau si ng ba ck in juri es

.

The Ro y al s su ed MNA cl ai m in g th at MNA su pe rv is ed an d con tro ll ed Sh awn

Ro y al ’s wor k, an d as su ch

, he was MNA’s em pl oyee an d en ti tl ed to ho ld MNA li ab le

un de r FELA. Add it io na ll y , th e Ro y al s al le ge d th at MNA was li ab le fo r ne gl ig en tl y pl aci ng rip -rap in th e ba ll as t se ct io n ne ar it s rai lro ad tra ck s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

MNA’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, an d t he Ro y al s n ow ap pe al

.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e

fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty an d gi vi ng th e no n- m ov in g

p a r t y th e be ne fit of reas on ab le in fere nc es ev id en t fro m th e reco rd

. Fra nc is c o v

. Bur li ng to n N. R.R. Co

. , 20 4 F.3 d 78 7, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). Su mm a r y ju d gm en t is

pr op er “ if t he m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact

an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). The

Ro y al s ch al le ng e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n bo th th e FELA

an d Ark an sa s n eg li ge nc e cl ai m s.

-3

-FELA al lo ws em pl oyees of in te rs ta te rai lro ad s to reco ve r ag ai ns t rai lro ad s fo r

in juri es su st ai ne d in th e co ur se of em pl oym en t. Co wd

en v. BNS F Ry. Co

. , 69 0 F.3 d

88 4, 88 9- 90 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) . FELA stat es th at “ [e]ver y co m m on carr ie r by rail ro ad

whi le en ga gi ng in co m

m erce be twee n an y of th e se ve ral St at es

. . . sh al l be li ab le in

da m ag es to an y pe rs on su ffer in g in jury whi le he is em

pl oyed by su ch carr ie r in su ch

co m m erce .” 45 U.S.C. § 51

. Thu s, in or de r to m ai nt ai n a FELA act io n ag ai ns t MNA,

th e Ro y al s m

us t d em on st rat e th at Ro y al was e m pl oyed b y MNA.

W hi le th e Ro y al s co nc ed e th at Ro y al was fo rm al ly an em pl oyee of NARS, no t
MNA, th ey are c o r r e c t t ha t ou r in qu iry do es no t en d th ere. In Kel le y v. So ut he rn

Pac if ic Co

. , th e Su pr em e Co u r t n ot ed th at fo r FELA pu rp os es , “ em pl oym en t”

de sc rib es a m as te r-s erv an t rel at io ns hi p “ de te rm in ed by refe ren ce to co mm o n

- l a w

pr in ci pl e s

. ” 41 9 U.S. 31 8, 32 3 (1 97 4)

. Und er th e co m m on la w, a pl ai nt iff can

es ta bl is h em

pl oym en t wit h a rai lro ad carr ie r ev en whi le no m in al ly emp l o ye d b y

an ot he r if he can sh ow he is (1 ) a bo rro wed se rv an t, (2 ) a d u a l s e r v an t, or (3 ) a

su bs erv an t. Id

. at 32 4. Dete rm in in g whe th er a pl ai nt iff co ns ti tu te s a bo rro wed

se rv an t, du al s e r v a n t

, or su bs erv an t tu rn s on whe th er th e rai lro ad co nt ro ll ed or ha d

th e rig ht to co nt ro l th e pl ai nt iff ’s pe rfo rm an ce of hi s job

. Van sk ik e v. ACF In du s.,

In c. , 66 5 F .2d 18 8, 1 98 -9 9 (8 th Cir . 19 81 ) (ci ti ng Kel le y , 41 9 U.S. at 32 2- 26 ).

Ro y al do es no t qu al ify as MNA’s em pl oyee be cau se th e ev id en ce s ho ws tha t

NARS was th e so le en ti ty th at ha d th e rig ht to co nt ro l hi s wor k

. R o ya l ’s c h ai n of

co m m an d co ns is te d on ly of NARS em pl oyees. NARS h ire d hi m , tra in ed hi m , an d

se nt hi m to do m a i n t e n a n c e w or k on rai lro ad s. NARS was res po ns ib le fo r al l of

Ro y al ’s co m

pe ns at io n an d mai n t a in ed so le au th or it y to di sc ip li ne or fir e hi m

. Fu rth erm or e, NARS pr ov id ed al l sa fet y tra in in g an d eq ui pm en t in st ru ct io n to Ro y al

an d fu rn is he d al l hi s pe rs on al pr ot ect iv e an d se rv ic e eq ui pm en t. Ro y al res po nd s th at

MNA no ne th el es s co nt ro ll ed or ha d th e rig ht to co nt ro l hi s wor k be cau se MNA

em pl oyees of

te n to ld hi m to “ hu rry up ,” he was req ui red to ab id e by Rai lAm eri caMNA sa fet y gu id el in es , MNA em pl oyees in sp ect ed hi s wo r k, an d an on si te MNA

-4

-em

pl oyee co or di na te d lo cat io ns a n d sc he du le s fo r wor k as si gn m en ts

. The se fact s,

ho wev er, are im m at eri al be cau se th ey wou ld no t al lo w a reas on ab le jury to fin d th at

MNA co nt ro ll ed or h ad th e ri gh t t o c on tro l Ro y al ’s work

.

Fi rs t, Ro y al ’s te st im on y t h at MNA em pl oyees to ld hi m to hu rry up is no t a

m at eri al fact whe n ex am in ed ag ai ns t th e ba ck dr op of hi s en ti re te st im on y

. Els ewh ere,

Ro y al te st ifi ed th at no bo dy ru sh ed hi m on th e da y of th e in ci de nt an d th at MNA ne ve r

di rect ed hi m on ho w to op erat e hi s ba ll as t reg ul at or

. Thu s, Ro y al ’s lo ne refe ren ce to

be in g h ur rie d i s n ot en ou gh to al lo w a reas on ab le jury to fin d th at MNA co nt ro ll ed

or ha d th e rig ht to co nt ro l Royal’s wor k. Se e Bru ns ti ng v. Lu ts en Mou nt ai ns Co rp

. , 60 1 F .3d 81 3, 8 20 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (“ A m ere ‘sci nt il la of ev id en ce’ is in su ffi ci en t t o

de feat su m

m ary jud gm en t.” (q uo ti ng And er so n v. Li be rt

y Lo bb y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 24 2,

25 6 (1 98 6) )).

Seco nd

, th e m ere ex is te nc e of sa fet y gu id el in es do es no t su gg es t th at MNA ha d

th e rig ht to co nt ro l Ro y al ’s wor k. The ob li ga ti on to co nf or m to sa fet y req ui rem en ts

was a “ m ut ua ll y ag reed up on pr act ic e[] th at m erel y in su red wor ke r an d p r e mi s e s

sa fet y .” Ca mpb el l v. BNS F Ry. Co

. , 60 0 F.3 d 66 7, 66 9, 67 4 (6 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (h ol di ng

th at ad he ren ce to a r ai lro ad ’s sa fet y pr ot oc ol s is no t en ou gh to sh ow a co nt ract or ’s

em pl oyees were r a i l ro ad em pl oyees)

. The ag reem en t to ab id e by cert ai n sa fet y

reg ul at io ns is a reas on ab le req ue st ne ces sa ry to sa feg ua rd ag ai nst da

nge ro us wor k an d

do es no t co ns ti tu te co nt ro l o r su pe rv is io n. Se e id

. at 6 74

.

Fi na ll y , MNA’s in sp ect io n of NARS’s an d Ro y al ’s wor k an d it s co or di na ti on

of lo cat io ns an d sc he du le s fo r wor k as si gn m en ts are li ke wis e in su ffi ci en t to in di cat e

th at MNA ha d th e rig ht to co nt ro l Ro y al ’s wor k. “ [M]in im um co op erat io n ne ces sa ry

to carr y ou t a co or di na te d un de rta ki ng

. . . can no t am ou nt to co nt ro l or su pe rv is io n,”

S h e nk er v. Bal ti mor e & Ohi o R.R. Co

. , 37 4 U.S. 1, 6 (1 96 3) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

, be cau se ev id en ce of co nt act s be twee n a rai lro ad ’s em pl oyees an d a co nt ract or ’s

em pl oyees “ m ay in di cat e, no t di rect io n o r co nt ro l, bu t rat he r th e pa ss in g of

-5

-in fo rm at io n an d th e acco m m od at io n t h a t i s ob vi ou sl y req ui red in a la rg e an d

ne ces sa ril y co or di na te d op erat io n,” Kel le y , 41 9 U.S. at 32 9. As a res ul t, “ [t]he m ere

fact th at a rai lro ad res erv es th e rig ht to as su re pe rfo r man c e i n a cco rd an ce wit h th e

sp eci fic at io ns of

th e co nt ract do es no t re nd er [t he ] co nt ract or a rai lro ad em pl oyee.”

Mor ri s v. Gul

f Co as t Ra i l Grp

., In c. , 82 9 F. Su pp

. 2d 41 8, 42 4 (E.D. La. 20 10 ).

Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at MNA co nt ro ll ed or

ha d th e rig ht to co nt ro l Ro y al ’s wor k an d th eref or e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he Ro y al s’ FELA clai m

.

The Ro y al s ne xt as se rt th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng th ei r cl ai m th at

MNA ne gl ig en tl y pl aced rip -rap i n th e ba ll as t se ct io n ne ar it s rai lro ad tra ck s. W e

ap pl y Ark an sa s la w an d “ are bo un d by de ci si on s of th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e C o u r t .”

Se e Ch ew v. Am. Gre et in gs Co rp

. , 75 4 F.3 d 63 2, 63 5 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 14 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. In or de r to es ta bl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e of ne gl ig en ce un de r Ark an sa s la w,

“ a pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow th at da m ag es were su st ai ne d, th at th e de fen da nt br each ed th e

st an da rd of care , an d th at th e de fen da nt ’s act io ns were th e pr ox im at e cau se of th e

da m ag es .” Uni on Pac . R.R. Co . v . S ha rp , 9 52 S.W .2d 65 8, 66 1 (Ark . 1 99 7)

. “ The

is su e of whe th er a du ty ex is ts is al way s a qu es ti on of la w, no t to be de ci de d by a tri er

of fact

. If no du ty of care is owe d, su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te .” La cy v. Fla ke

& Kel le y Mg mt., In c. , 23 5 S .W .3d 89 4, 8 96 (Ark . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

“ [A]n em pl oyer of an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or owe s a co m m on la w du ty to th e

co nt ract or ’s em

pl oyees to ex erci se or di na ry care fo r th ei r sa fet y an d to warn ag ai ns t

an y hi dd en da ng ers or un us ua ll y ha zard ou s co nd it io ns .” Ja cks on v. Peti t Jea n Elec

. Co -o p. , 60 6 S.W .2d 66

, 68 (Ark

. 19 80 ). Thi s du ty, ho wev er, “ do es no t co nt em pl at e

a du ty to warn of ob vi ou s da ng ers whi ch are an in te gr al pa rt of th e wor k th e

co nt ract or was hi red to pe rfo rm .” D.B. Gri ff in W ar eh ou se

, In c

. v

. S

a nd er s , 76

S.W .3d 25 4, 2 62 (Ark . 20 02 ). The Ro y al s do no t d is ag ree wi th th es e st at em en ts of

la w or ev en MNA’s co nt en ti on th at rip -rap is an ob vi ou s da ng er in th is li ne of wor k.

The Ro y al s do cl ai m , ho wev er, th at th e da ng ers po se d by rip -rap in th is cas e are no t

-6

-ob vi ou s b ecau se MNA ne gl ig en tl y pl aced rip -rap in a se ct io n o f th e tra ck s where it

di d n ot be lo ng . W e are no t p ers ua de d b y th ei r arg um en t.

In Ch ew v. Ameri ca n Gre et in gs Co rp

. , we ap pl ie d an Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t

cas e, D.B. Gri

ff in W ar eh ou se

, In c. v. Sa nd er

s , 76 S.W .3d 25 4 (Ark

. 20 02 ), an d fo un d

th at an em

pl oyer of in de pe nd en t-c on tra ct or el ect ric al wor ke rs owe d no du ty to warn

o f t h e da ng er in ap pr oa ch in g a tra ns fo rm er wit h im pr op er eq ui pm en t be cau se t h e

wor k ne ces sa ril y im

pl ic at ed th es e ob vi ou s ha zard s. 75 4 F.3 d at 63 9. The pl ai nt iff s

arg ue d th at th e d e f

en da nt fai le d to warn th em of th e “ un iq ue na tu re of it s

tra ns fo rm ers , [wh ic h] cau se d [th e pl ai nt i ff’s] in co rrec t as su m pt io ns ab ou t th e [tr an sf or m er’s vol ta ge ]. ” Id

. at 63 5. W e he ld th at “ th ou gh so m e de ta il s abo ut [th e]

tra ns fo rm ers m ay ha ve be en hi dd en , . . . th e ul ti m at e ha zard th e tra ns fo rm e r p o s e d

was ob vi ou s, and th e co nt ract or s reta in ed th e ul ti m at e res po ns ib il it y to as se ss th es e

ris ks

. ” I d

. a t 6 39 (“ [The ] du ty to warn of la te nt or hi dd en da ng ers

. . . . do es no t

en co m pa ss an o bl ig at io n to warn of th e la te nt ch arac te ris ti cs of an ob vi ou s ha zard

th at ari se s b ecau se of t he na tu re o f th e co nt ract or ’s work .”).

Thi s lo gi c ap pl ie s he re wit h eq ua l fo r c e

. Th e da ng ers po se d by ri p- rap were

ob vi ou s. Ro y al te st i f

i e d t h a t he was tra in ed to op erat e hi s m ach in e in an area wit h
rip -rap , th at he ha d no ti ced th ere was rip -rap al on g th e rai lro ad in th e area whe re he

was op erat in g, th at it was a co m m on oc cu rren ce to pu ll rip -rap fro m ou ts id e th e rai ls

t o i n s i d e t he rai ls , a nd th at he ha d pr ev io us ly s tru ck a pi ece of rip -rap on th is sa me

MNA rai lro ad li ne

. Thu s, “ [t]ho ug h so m e de ta il s ab ou t [th e rip -rap ] m ay ha ve be en

hi dd en , . . . th e ul ti m at e ha zard [th e rip -rap ] po se d was ob vi ou s, an d [Ro y al ] ret ai ne d

th e ul ti m at e res po ns ib il it y to as se ss th es e ris ks .” Se e id

. at 63 9. We de te rm in e th at

MNA di d no t owe Ro y al a du ty to warn of th e well -k no wn da ng ers of rip -rap an d th at

th e Ro y al s’ neg li ge nc e cl ai m th eref or e fai ls as a m at te r of

law.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-