IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

RONALD WARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-00001

)

SOO LINE RAILROAD )

COMPANY d/b/a CANADIAN )

PACIFIC, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the: (1) Defendant’s Motion

for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Defendant, Soo Line

Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific (“CP Rail”), on July 17,

2015 (DE #36); and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Conference,

filed by Plaintiff, Ronald Ward, on September 14, 2015 (DE #39). 

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (DE #36), which is

uncontested, is GRANTED and Counts I and II of the second amended

complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court notes that Count

III of the second amended complaint, for negligence, remains

pending. The Plaintiff’s Motion for a Status Conference (DE #39)

is GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED that the parties appear before

this Court, 5400 Federal Plaza, Hammond, Indiana, on October 20,

2015, at 1:00 p.m. 
DISCUSSION

Defendant filed its motion and memorandum of law in support of

the motion for judgment on the pleadings with regards to Count I

and Count II of the second amended complaint (DE ##36, 37) on July

17, 2015. On September 14, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald Ward, filed a

submission stating “Plaintiff is not contesting Soo Line Railroad’s

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as to Count I and Count II.” 

(DE #39, p. 1.) 

The pleadings filed by the parties in this case establish that

the events and injuries giving rise to Plaintiff’s cause of action

occurred in Canada. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”),

45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., does not have extraterritorial effect, and

case law bars the recovery under FELA by American citizens for

injuries sustained outside the United States. See, e.g., Priestman

v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 782 F.Supp. 681, 683 (D. Me. 1992); New

York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31 (1925); Boak v.

Consol. Rail Corp., 850 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1988). As such,

Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count I. 

Regarding Count II, the Locomotive Inspection Act, 29 U.S.C.

§ 20701, “does not create a right to sue but merely establishes a

safety standard, the failure to comply with that standard is

negligence per se under the FELA.” Coffey v. Northeast Illinois

Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (METRA), 479 F.3d 472, 477

(7th Cir. 2007) (citing Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 188-89 and

2
n.30 (1949)). As explained in Urie, “an employee injury suit

alleging violation of the Broiler Inspection Act [predecessor to

the Locomotive Inspection Act] is brought under the Federal

Employers’ Liability Act . . . .” (Id. at n. 30.) Thus, a

plaintiff cannot maintain a stand-alone action under the Locomotive

Inspection Act. As such, Count II is dismissed as well. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Judgment on

the Pleadings (DE #36), which is uncontested, is GRANTED and Counts

I and II of the second amended complaint are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. The Court notes that Count III of the second amended

complaint, for negligence, remains pending. The Plaintiff’s Motion

for a Status Conference (DE #39) is GRANTED and it is hereby

ORDERED that the parties appear before this Court, 5400 Federal

Plaza, Hammond, Indiana, on October 20, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. 

DATED: September 22, 2015 /S/RUDY LOZANO, Judge 

United States District Court

3