[PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 58 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cv -0 01 49 -HLM

CONNIE STRICKLAND, Plai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, D efen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st27 , 20 12 ) Befo re J ORDAN andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d EDENFIELD, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *
Honora ble B . Avant Ede nfield, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

designation. Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 1 of 22FAY, Cir cu itJu dg e:

On J ul y 23 , 20 09 , Con ni e Stric kl an d h adbe en“ worki ng on th e rai lro ad/ Al l th e li ve -lo ng da y .” In f

act , he c la im s h e was work in g h is cu st om ary twel ve -h ou r 1 sh iftwhen , to ward s the en d o f th atsh ift , he s uf fere d am as si ve sh ou ld er i nju ry as a res ul t o f a fau lt y

ha ndbr ak e. Stric kl an d, h owe ve r, co ul d n otid en ti fy th e rai l ca r on whi chth e h an db rak e was in st al le d. No ne th el es s, h e fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t h is em pl oyer, Nor fo lkSo ut he rnRai lway Com pa ny (“ Nor fo lkSo ut he rn ”), s ta ti ng cla im s u nd er th e Fed eral Em

pl oyers’ Liab il ity

Act (“ FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 5 1 et seq . , an d t he 2 Fed eral Safe ty App li an ce Act(“ FSAA”), 4 9 U.S.C. § 20 30 1 et seq . Subs eque nt ly, 3 A popular America

n folk song , the first published ver sion of “I ’ve B een Workingon the 1 Railroad” se ems to have be en in a 1894 Prince ton University songbook. See J ames J. Fuld, The Book of World-Famous Music 309 (D over, 4th e d. 1996). Duringthe late 1800s a

nd early 1900s, the larg e number

of ser ious and fata l injuries 2 suffe red by

railroa d employees w as a growingcause for c oncer n. In response , Congr ess ena cted the FE LA to provide a

causeof ac tion to thos e employees w orkingin interstate commerce. Pursuant to the FELA, “[e]very common car

rier by railroa d . . . shall be liable in dama g es to any person suff

eringinjury

while he is employed by

such ca rrier . . . for suc h injury

or death resulting in whole or in par

t from the neg lige nce of

any of the off icer s, ag ents, or employees of such car rier . . . .” 45 U.S.C. § 51. “The FELA is meant to provide a broad r emedial f

rame work for

railroa d worke rs and, in light of that purpose, is to be libera lly construed in their

favor .” Lisek v. Norfolk &W . Ry. Co. , 30 F.3d 823, 832 ( 7th Cir. 1994). The basis of F ELA liability is neg lige nce a

nd, althoug h what constitutes neg lige nce f

or the statute’ s purpose is a f eder al question, this feder al question turns on principles of c ommon law. Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall , 512 U.S. 532, 543 (1994) (quotations and citations omitted). Although it does not provide a stand-a lone ca use of a ction, Moses v . Union Pac. R.R. , 3 64 F.3d 413, 418 ( 8th Cir. 1995) (“The FSAA[] . . . do[ es] not create an indepe ndent ca use of action for injured par

ties.”), a violation of the FSAA ma y be asse rted unde r the F ELA. Lisek, 30 2 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 2 of 22Nor fo lkSo ut he rnm ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t, co nt en di ng th at , in th e ab se nc e of anid en ti fic at io n o f th e rai l ca r an d t he all eg edfau lt y ha ndbr ak e, th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o c on st itut e a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al factto pre ve nt su m m ary jud gm en t i n i ts fav or . Norfo lkSo ut he rn ’s m ot io n i m pl ic it ly reli edup on th e co nt en ti on th atStr ic kl an d’s t es ti m on y was i ns uf

fic ie ntin an d o f it se lf t o d efea t su m m ary jud gm en t. With ou t ad dr es si ng th e su ffi ci en cy of S tri ck la nd ’s tes ti m on y , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o No rfo lkSo ut he rn . On St ric kl an d’s ap pe al , we are fa cedwith two i ss ue s. Th e fi rs t i ss ue is whe th er the di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d t he pro pe r st an da rdin ad jud ic at in g No rfo lk So ut he rn ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t; th e se co ndis whet he r su m m ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te ev enif t he di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d the wron g s ta nd ard . Fi nd in g b ot h t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d t he wron g s tand ardan d t ha t, ev enif i t ha d app li edth e co rrec t s ta nd ard , su m m ary jud gm en t wo ul d h av e b een im pr op er, we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er an d re m an d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith
F.3d at 825. The F SAA direc ts that a railroa d car rier ma y use, or a llow to be used on any of its railroa d lines, a vehic le only if it is equipped with the enumer ated sa fety device s; releva

nt here is the re quirement of e nsuringthat eac h vehicle c ontain eff icient handbr akes. 49 U .S.C. § 20302(a) (1)( B) . Under the FSAA, the railroa d’s duty is absolute, thus an employee ne ed only prove that the statute wa s violated and that ha rm resulted. See Lisek, 30 F.3d at 825. “In other wor ds, a failure of equipment to per form as r equire d by the [FSAA] is in itself an ac tionable wrong , in no way depende nt upon neg lige nce a nd for the pr ox imate re sults of which there is liabili ty -a liability that cannot be esca

ped by proof of car e or dilig ence .” Id. at 826 (quoting O’Donne ll v. Elgin, J. &E. Ry. Co. , 338 U.S. 384, 390 (1949) (inter nal quotations omitt ed) ( alteration in original)) . 3 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 3 of 22th is op in io n. I.

W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt's gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g al l ev id en ce an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le factua l i nf eren ces in fav orof t he no nm ov in g p art y . Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns p. , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 23 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc ). Sum

m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e th ere are n o g en ui ne is su es of
m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Id
. In o th er wor ds , “ [t]he Dis tri ctCo urt [m us t] con si de r al l ev id en ce i n t he reco rdwhen rev ie win g am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t—

pl ead in gs , dep os it io ns , in te rro ga to rie s, af

fid av it s, et c.—a ndcan on ly gran t s umm ary jud gm en t i f ev erythi ng inth e rec or d d em on st rat es th atno ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact ex is ts .” Ti pp en s v. Celot ex Co rp . , 80 5 F .2d94 9, 9 52 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (i nt ern al ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d) . “ Cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns , th e wei gh in g o f th e ev id en ce, an d t he drawin g o f le gi ti m at e in fere nc es fro m th e fac ts are ju ry fu nc ti on s, n otth os e o f a jud ge , whet he r he is rul in g o n am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o r fo r a d ire ct edve rd ic t.” Ander so n v . Lib er tyLo bb

y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 2 42 , 25 5 (1 98 6) . Howev er, we m ay affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt's jud gm en t “ onan y gro un d th atfin ds supp ort i n t he reco rd .” Lu ca s v. W.W . Gra in ge r, In c. , 25 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . 4 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 4 of 22II .

The re le va ntfact s o f th is cas e can fai rly be co nd en se d a s fo ll ows : An ex pe rie nc edrai lro adwork er fo r ov er 3 0 years, Stric kl an d was em pl oyed b y Nor fo lkSo ut he rnas aswi tc hm an . As a s wit ch m an , Stri ck la nd ’s du ti es requi red hi m to m ou ntan d c li m

b ra il cars , as wel l as li ft, p ul l, an d t wis t h an db rak es on ce ab oa rdth os e rai l cars . He was o pe rat in g a s a s wit ch m anon Ju ly 23, 2 00 9. Hi s 4
work d ay be gan a t 7 :3 0 a .m . Toward s t he en d o f hi s s hi ft, a ro un d 5 :4 5 p .m ., on e rai l ca r in pa rti cu la r—atan k c ar, al th ou gh Str ic kl an d re cal ls no ot he r ch arac te ris ti cs
— ga ve Str ic kl an d aha rd er t im e th anno rm al in rel eas in g t he 5 ha ndbr ak e. Stric kl an d was on th e caralo ne an d s aw th atth e h an db rak e ap pe ared no rm al , witho utco rro si on or a ny app aren t m ech an ic al fai lu re. He at te m pt edto di se ng ag e th e qui ckrel eas e o f th e b rak e; itm ov edbu t t he bra ke di d n otrel eas e. Thi s was no t “ anou t-o f-t he -b lu e th in g.” He th eref or e as su m edth e st an ce t au gh t b y Nor fo lkSo ut he rnan d re qu ire d fo r us e o f th e se co ndst ag e o f th e h an db rak e an d
A ty pical handbr ake a

pparatus includes both a quick-r elea se leve r (“ first stag e”) and a 4 whee l (“sec ond stag e”) , which ca n be turne d to operate the bra king sy stem on a ra ilcar. The quick-re lease lever

is designe d so that it will rele ase the entirety of the c hain that is eng ag ing the brake benea

th the rail ca

r. Unde r normal ope rations, a switchma n first seeks to use the first stag e. I f the fir st stage does not suffice , he then turns to the se cond stag e. The second stag e of the handbra ke re quires the switchma

n to rotate a

whee l counterc lockwise. Strickland, howeve r, conte nded that it was possible for Norfolk Southern, by

ref ere nce 5 to a Switch L ist, to narrow down the possible number of r ail car s that could have been involved. 5 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 5 of 22at te m

pt edto tu rnth e b rak e whe el us in g “ reas on ab le effo rt.” It wo ul d n ottu rn . 6 The fai lu re o f th e h an db rak e whe el to tu rnwas u nc omm on . It was on ly whe n h e ex ert edm or e fo rce o n asec on d a tt em ptth atStr ic kl an d fe ltth e h an db rak e rel eas e. 7 At d iff eren t t im es , he d es cri be d t hi s ef fo rt a s p ut ti ng “ a li tt le bi t m or e [s te ady ] pr es su re o n i t” an d “ a v ery hi gh am ou ntof e ffo rt” witho utch an gi ng hi s s ta nc e o r hi s g rip . Aftertu rn in g t he whee l, h e fel t a t win ge in hi s s ho ul de r. He co nt in ue d t o work andco m

pl et edhi s t welv e-h ou r sh ift . Afte rward s, h is sh ou ld er fe ltso re, 8 whi chhe m ay

ha ve m en ti on edin ge ne ral co nv ers at io n t o h is co -wo rk ers bu t d id no t re po rt t o No rfo lkSo ut he rn . Howev er, wh enhe go t h om e, he m en ti on edto hi s wife th athi s s ho ul de r was so re an d tha t h e th ou gh t i t was be cau se of o ne pa rti cu la r ha ndbr ak e h e h adto rel eas e. Non ethe le ss , Stri ck la ndco nt in ue d t o g o t o wo rk . So on aft er, St ric kl an d b eg anex pe rie nc in g p ai n t ha t h e h adne ve r be fo re ex pe rie nc edin hi s s ho ul de r. Stric kl an d be li ev edth atth e act io ns he to okin di se ng ag in g t he ha ndbr ak e in qu es ti on cau se d h is sh ou ld er i nju ry . Stri ck la nd Acc ordingto Strickland, “the e ffor t [ he] used seeme d rea sonable to [him] , but was 6 almost certa inly

at the top end of

what the avera g e ra ilroad worke r would use to attempt to acc omplish t he same task.” It is the amount of forc e exerted by Strickland which Nor folk Southern now re lies upon 7 in support of the district court’ s summary judgme nt order. It argues that Strickland expended excessive ef

fort to ef fec tuate the ha

ndbrake rele ase, while Strickland counter s that he “did not use excessive e ffor

t as [he] define [s] that term.” In total, Strickland relea sed betwe en ten a nd twelve ha

ndbrake s that day . He r eapplied 8 about the same number, a s well. 6

Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 6 of 22rep orte d t he in ci de ntto Norf ol k S ou th ern on Aug us t 3 , 20 09 , alm os t t wo wee ks aft er the acci de ntoc cu rred . Stri ck la ndth enwentto anurg en t care fa ci li ty, whe re th e d oc to r to okso m e x -rays an d g av e h im so m e an ti -in fla m

m at ory pi ll s. He returne d t o t he same do ct ora weeklat er, atwhi ch ti m e th e d oc to r to ldhi m anMRI was ne ed ed . Stri ck la ndwas re ferr edto anort ho pe di c su rg eo n, wh o o rd eredth e MRI an d e ve ntua ll y

to ldhi m th athi s s ho ul de r was “ to rnpre tty ba d” an d t ha t h e ha d a“ se ve redbi cep ten do n i n [h is ] sh ou ld er.” The su rg eo n re co m m en de d su rg ery, whi ch Str ic kl an d s ub se qu en tl y un de rwen t. On Se pt em

be r 20 , 20 10 , Stri ck la ndfil edsu itag ai ns t No rfo lkSo ut he rn . In hi s co m pl ai nt , he a ll eg edtwo co un ts : Co un t I a ll eg eda cl ai m un de r th e FELA, cl ai m in g t ha t No rfo lkSo ut he rnwas n eg li ge ntin fai li ng to pro vi de Str ic kl an d wi th sa fe an d a de qu at e equi pm en t, t oo ls , ass is tanc e, an d t he li ke . Cou ntII al le ge d a cl ai m un de r th e FELA andth e FSAA, cl ai m in g t ha t t he “ in effi ci en ci es ” o f th e ha ndbr ak e in qu es ti on cau se d h is in jury andth atNorf

ol k S ou th ern was l iabl e. 9 Afte r th e p art ie s co nduc te d d is co ve ry , Norfo lkSo ut he rnm ov edfor su m m ary jud gm en t, co nt en di ng th at“ th ere [ was ] in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt [St ric kl an d’s] cla im s.” I n s up po rt o f th atco nt en ti on , Norfo lkSo ut he rnarg ue d t ha t
The F SAA uses “inef

ficienc y” as a

term of a rt to descr ibe mecha

nisms that either do not 9 function or do not func tion as intended by the manufa cture r. See M

yers v . Reading Co. , 331 U.S. 477, 483 (1947); Spotts v. Baltimore &O.R. Co. , 102 F.2d 160, 162 ( 7th Cir. 1938). 7 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 7 of 22Stric kl an d c ou ldno t “ adva nc e[] evi de nc e th atth e [h an db rak e] was de fect iv e”; th at

Nor fo lkSo ut he rn“ ha d a ctua l o r co ns tru ct iv e kno wled ge th atth e [h an db rak e] in qu es ti on was d efec ti ve ”; or t ha t St ric kl an d’s i nju rie s ar os e fro m Norf ol k So ut he rn ’s neg li ge nc e. Mo reo ve r, Norf ol k S ou th ernarg ue d tha t, “ be cau se [it ] ha d no way to de fen d i ts el f” ag ai ns t St ric kl an d’s cl ai m s b ecau se he co ul d n otid en ti fy th e p art ic ul ar ra il car o n wh ic h h e was in jure d, St ric kl an d’s ca se ha d t o b e di sm is se d. 1 0 Stric kl an d o pp os edsu m

m ary jud gm en t, co nt en di ng th athi s ev id en ce—na m el y , hi s t es ti m on y an d t ha t o f hi s t reat in g p hysic ia n— de m on st rat ed Nor fo lkSo ut he rn ’s li ab il ity un de r th e FELA andth e FSAA. Not in g t ha t an em pl oyee m ay

reco ve r un de r th e FELA if h is em pl oyer’s neg li ge nc e “pl ay edan y pa rt, e ve n t he sl ig ht es t, i n p ro du ci ng th e in jury or de ath fo r whi ch da m ag es are so ug ht ,” Rog er

s v. Miss ou ri Paci

fi c Rai lr oa d C

o. , 35 2 U.S. 5 00 , 50 6 (1 95 7) , Stric kl an d a rg ue d t ha t s umm ary jud gm en t i s d is fav or edin FELA acti on s. Se e ge ne ra ll y CS X Tra ns p., In c. v. McBri de , 56 4 U.S. _ _, 1 31 S.Ct . 26 30 (20 11 ). Mo reo ve r, Str ic kl an d a rg ue d t ha t t he de te rm in in g fa ct orin hi s ac ti on was n ei th er Strickland withdrew c erta in of his claims after Norfolk Southern f

iled its mot ion for 1 0 summary judgme nt. Specifica lly , he withdre w his claims under Count I and instead pr ocee ded “solely in relianc e on [Norfolk Southern’s] violation of the [FSAA] t hat re quires ef ficient [handbrakes] and imposes strict liability for [Norfolk Southern’ s] failure to provide them.” The district court consider ed Count Iabandone d, and we need not r eview that determination at this time. 8

Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 8 of 22whe th er h e co ul d i de nt ify a “ m ech an ic al de fector b ro ke n p art ” in th e h an db rak e at

is su e, no r whe th er h e co ul d i de nt ify the nu m be r of th e caron whi ch th e h an db rak e was in st al le d; in st ead , th e is su e was whet he r hi s t es ti m on y alo ne co ns ti tu te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t. He s ub m it te d asupp orti ng affi da vi t i n o pp os it io n t o No rfo lkSo ut he rn ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. 1 1 The di stric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o No rfo lkSo ut he rn . Alt ho ug h t he co urt re co gn iz edth e su m m ary jud gm en t s tand ardan d t he

“ feat he rwei gh t” bu rd enof aFELA clai m to withs ta ndsu m

m ary jud gm en t, Di st . Ct . Orde r at23 (qu ot in g Dia mon d Of fs ho re Man ag emen t Co . v. Hor to n , 19 3 S.W .3d76 , 79 (Tex . App . 20 06 )), itno ne th el es s h el d t ha t St ric kl an d’s fa il ur e to

“ id en ti fy with a ny certa in ty the rai l ca r th atall eg ed ly hadth e d efec ti ve [h an db rak e],” Dist . Ct. Ord er at28 -2 9, wo ul d re su ltin “ th e Co urt an d t he pa rti es [] on ly spe cu la [ti ng ] ab ou t wh ic h ra il car co nt ai ne d t he all eg ed ly defec ti ve [h an db rak e].” Id
. at 3 3. Ci ti ng two no n- bi nd in g c as es in supp ort, Tez ak v. BNSF Rai lw ay . Co. , No. C0 9- 05 12 BHS, 2 01 0 WL 32 11 69 3, * 1 (W.D. W as h. Au g. 1 2,
As pointed out by

Norfolk Southern, Strickland’ s aff idavit arg uably differ ed fr om his 1 1 earlier testimony

in at least one r espec t. At his deposition, S trickland said that he had put “a littl e bit more pressur e” on the whee l of the handbr ake to g et it to disenga g e af ter it failed to do so the first time. In his affidavit, Strickland te stified that he had a ctually intended to say

that he had applied “a

very high a mount of eff

ort.” Strickland, in his aff idavit, expl ained a

ny discrepa ncy in the two statements wa s due to his colloquial manner of speec h. We will further discuss this appar ent discre pancy

in Section I I I B, infra . 9 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 9 of 2220 10 ), an d O’Nei ll v. BNSF Ra ilwa

y Co
. , No. A10 -1 98 7, 2 01 1 WL 40 08 27 6 (Mi nn . Ct. Ap p. Se pt . 12 , 20 11 ), th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t s uc h s pe cu la ti on co ul d no t d em on st rat e a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al factor s at is fy th e fea th erwei gh t bu rd enrequi redun de r th e FELA. Dist . Ct. Ord er at27 -3 4. No whe re i n i ts ord er di d t he di st ric t co urt d ire ct ly addres s St ric kl an d’s t es ti m on y in supp ort o f hi s cl ai m s. Id
. at35 n.3 . Stri ck la ndap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er. II I. As n ot edab ov e, th ere a re n ow t wo i ss ue s o n app eal . The fi rs t i ss ue rel at es to whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d t he pro pe r st an da rdingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t. Th e se co ndis su e requi res us to co ns id er wh ethe r, ev enif the pro pe r st an da rdha d b een ap pl ie d b y th e d is tri ctco urt, St ric kl an d p utforth su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s urvi ve su m

m ary jud gm en t. We add res s ea chin tu rn .

A. Stric kl an d c on te nd s t ha t t he su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er m

us t b e rev ers ed be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y ba se d t ha t o rd er upo n S tri ck la nd ’s fai lu re t o id en ti fy th e rai l ca r on whi ch hi s i nju ry oc cu rred . The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t th is fai lu re l eftNorf

ol k S ou th ern in anun te nabl e d efen si ve po stur e an d the refo re gr an te d i t s umm ary jud gm en t. Up onco ns id erat io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s re as on in g, we ag ree wi thStr ic kl an d t ha t s uc h aba si s fo r su m m ary jud gm en t was im

pr op er. 10 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 10 of 22The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly recit edth e co nt ro ll in g s ta nd ard s fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Itreco gn iz edth at , to su rv iv e a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, a pl ai nt iff ass ert in g aFELA clai m

m us t d em on st rat e th ata qu es ti on of f actex is ts co nc ern in g wh ethe r th e em pl oyer’s neg li ge nc e p la y eda pa rt, h owe ve r sl ig ht , in th e em pl oyee’s in

juri es . Dis t. Ct . Orde r at24 (ci ti ng Rog er s , 35 2 U.S. at50 5- 07 ). The di st ric t co urt al so no te d t ha t i t “ m ay no t m ak e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns , weig h c on fli ct in g e vi de nc e to res ol ve di sp ut edfactua l i ss ue s, o r as se ss th e qua li ty of th e ev id en ce p res en te d.” Dis t. Ct . Orde r at20 . Howev er, d es pi te reco gn iz in g t he “ li be ral pri nc ip le s u nd erl y in g t he FSAA an d i ts rel at edrel ax edbu rd enof p ro of ,” th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t “ al lo win g [St ric kl an d’s] FSAA cla im to pro ceedto a jury on t he ba si s o f sp ecu la ti on wou ld effe ct iv el y

co nv ert[Nor fo lkSo ut he rn ] in to anin su rer o f al l wo rk pl ace i nju rie s, an d c ou ldcrea te li ab il it y

si m pl y ba se d o n a ll eg at io ns , no t ac tu al ev id en ce.” Di st . Ct . Orde r at33 . Thu s, t he di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t n o que st io n o f fac t co ul d e xi st be cau se Str ic kl an d “ di d n otreca ll th e p art ic ul ar ca r nu m be r, . . . [or wh ethe r] the car i n que st io n was be in g p ul le d o r pl aced .” Id. at 5 . The di stric t co urt m is co ns tru edth e is su e b efo re i t. Ra th er tha n c on si de rin g th e o nl y qu es ti on rel ev an t t o No rfo lkSo ut he rn ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, whe th er the re was ev id en ce o f anin effi ci en t h an db rak e, th e co urt i ns te ad 11 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 11 of 22co ns id eredwhet he r Stric kl an d’s fa il ur e to id en ti fy th e rai l ca r was fat al to hi s cl ai m . Suc h aco ns id erat io n i s i m pr op er i n t he co nt ex t o f a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. No au th or it y

ex is ts for th e p ro po si ti on th atth e fai lu re t o i de nt ify the rai l ca r, st an di ng alo ne , pro vi de s a s uf fic ie ntba si s fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t i n No rfo lk So ut he rn ’s fav or . Whi le Str ic kl an d’s fa il ur e to id en ti fy a sp eci fic rai l ca r m ay hi nd er No rfo lkSo ut he rn ’s def en se , Norfo lkSo ut he rncit edno au th or it y , eit he r in it s b rie f orat o ral arg um en t, tha t wo ul d h av e supp orte d t he grant in g o f a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n s uc h aba si s. No r were we abl e to lo cat e an y co ntro ll in g orpe rs ua si ve au th or it y

au th or iz in g s uc h a ct io n. Neit he r of

th e cas es cit edby the di st ric t co urt, ei th er O’Nei ll or Tez ak , is ap pl ic ab le to th e fac ts he re. In O’Nei ll , a rai lro adwork er wh o was em pl oyed b y 1 2 th e BNSF R ai lway Com

pa ny (“ BNSF” ) fi le d s ui t t eny ears aft er h e st op pe d worki ng in th e p hysic al ly dem an di ng po si ti on s o f br ak em anan d s wit ch m an . O’Nei ll , 20 11 W L 40 08 27 6, at*1 . At th e ti m e h e b ro ug htsu it , he was alr ead y a fu ll -ti m e y ardm as te r. Id

. In h is su it , he a ll eg edth at , as ares ul t o f rep et it iv e act iv it y Most obviousl y , neither of those ca ses is binding upon the district c ourt nor us. See 1 2 Solymar Inv

s., Ltd. v. Banco Santander S.A. , 672 F.3d 981, 993 n.10 ( 11th Cir. 2012). More subtly , neither of

those ca ses wer e dec ided on a similar fa ctual basis, as w e will discuss, infra . Even if they

wer e, wewould still find that they wer e contr ary

to the stated purpose s of the F ELA and the F SAA. 12

Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 12 of 22in anun sa fe en vi ro nm en t o ve r a p eri odof 2 5 years, h e su ffer edcu m ul at iv e ph y si cal dysfu nc ti on an d i m pa irment o f hi s upp er b od y , sh ou ld ers , andto rs o. Id
. At tria l, the jud ge grant edBNSF a d ire ct edve rd ic t as to th e FSAA cl ai m an d al lo wedhi s FELA cl ai m

to go to th e jury. Id
. at * 3. Th e jury fou ndth atbo th pa rti es were n eg li ge ntbu t t ha t n ei th er p art y ’s neg li ge nc e was di rect ly resp on si bl e fo r th e al le ge d s ho ul de r in juri es an d a ward edO’ Neil l d am ag es forpa stan d fu tu re pa in an d s uf

feri ng , m ed ic al ex pe ns es , andlo stwage s. Id
. O’ Neil l ap pe al edth e di rect edve rd ic t g ran te d i n B NSF’s fav oron th e FSAA cl ai m . The Mi nn es ot a App eal s C ou rt a ffi rm edth e d ire ct edve rd ic t, fi nd in g t ha t O’Neil l co ul d n ot es tabl is h c au sa ti on du e to th e fac t t ha t t he in juri es he all eg edwere t oo far re m ov ed fro m hi s emplo ym en t as a br ak em anan d s wit ch m an . Id
. at * 8. O’Nei ll is di st in gu is habl e o n two i m po rta ntgro un ds . Firs t, O’Neil l’s ca se su rv iv edsu m

m ary jud gm en t. Al th ou gh th e co urt g ran te d B NSF’s m ot io n fo r di rect edve rd ic t as to th e FSAA cl ai m , id
. at * 3, h is FELA clai m was s ub m it te d t o a jury. Secon d, h is all eg at io ns were b as edon th e cu m ul at iv e eff

ect s h e en du red fro m a li fet im e o f worki ng as arai lro adwork er. Id
. at * 1. Un li ke Str ic kl an d, O’ Neil l was see ki ng to m ak e BNSF a n i ns ur er o f al l wo rk pl ace i njurie s. Cf

. In man v. Bal t. & Oh. R.R. Co. , 36 1 U.S. 1 38 , 14 0 (1 95 9) (ho ld in g the FELA is n ot in te nd edto m ak e rai lro adco rp or at io ns in su rers of t he ir e m pl oyees) . He cou ldno t 13 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 13 of 22po in t t o d oc um en ta ti on sh owi ng th athe ha d e ve r co m pl ai ne d abo utan y

of t he equi pm en t t ha t al le ge dl y

cau se d h is in

juri es ; n ordi d h e ev er n ot ic e o r rep ort an y pa in in hi s s ho ul de r un ti l 2 00 5. O’Nei ll , 20 11 W L 40 08 27 6, at*2 . He als o n ev er al le ge d t ha t h e su ffer edon e sp eci fic in jury or th atBNSF fa il edto co m pl y with a ny of th e st atut ory

requi rem en ts to m ak e worki ng on a rai lro ada sa fe en vi ro nm en t. Id
. at * 4. Here, St ric kl an d was no t g iv enth e o pp ortu ni ty to g o t o t ria l o r pr es en t h is cas e to a jury. In st ead , th e d is tri ctco urt ac te d a s t he tri er o f fac t an d d et erm in ed th athi s cl ai m s l ack edm eri t. Mo re i m po rta nt ly, un li ke O’ Neil l, St ric kl an d d oe s no t s eekbro adredres s fo r th e si de effe ct s o f worki ng as aswi tc hm an ; i ns te ad , he al le ge s h e su ffer eda sp eci fic in jury as a res ul t o f Nor fo lkSo ut he rn ’s fai lu re t o co m pl y with t he sp eci fic st atut ory requi rem en t t o p ro vi de effi ci en t h an db rak es . Id. at*2 . Forth es e rea so ns , O’Nei ll do es no t s up po rt the di st ric t co urt’s de te rm in at io n. Fo r si m il ar re as on s, n ei th er d oe s Tez ak . In Tez ak , th e rai lro adwork er, l ik e O’ Neil l, al le ge d t ha t h e su ffer eddi sabl in g i nju rie s as a res ul t o f cu m ul at iv e tr au m a st em m in g fr om

requi redact iv it ie s dur in g h is em pl oym en t b y

BNSF. Tez ak , 20 10 W L 32 11 69 3, at*1 . Tezakall eg edth athe “ en co un te red ” d efec ti ve ha ndbr ak es an d d efec ti ve pi n l ift ers ov er the co ur se of h is em pl oym en t. Id
. He fai le d, 14 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 14 of 22ho wev er, t o i de nt ify in wh atway s t ho se de vi ces vi ol at edth e FSAA. The tri al co urt

gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o B NSF b ecau se Tezakco ul d n otpo in t t o a ny pa rti cu la r in

jury-caus in g e ve ntor a ny part ic ul ar d efec ti ve de vi ce o n a ny part ic ul ar in -u se rai l ca r. Id
. at * 2. Inth e fac ts be fo re u s, St ric kl an d m ak es th e sp eci fic all eg at io ns lac ki ng in O’Nei ll an d Tez ak : h e p ro vi de s al le ga ti on s ab ou t a s pe ci fic in jury-caus in g e ve nt , id en ti fie s a s pe ci fic da te , andna rro ws t he nu m be r of rai lc ars whi ch co ul d h av e co nt ai ne d t he de fect iv e h an db rak e. Stric kl an d, u nl ik e th e p la in ti ffs in Tez ak an d O’Nei ll , do es no t s eekredres s fo r cu m ul at iv e tr au m a su ffer edth ro ug ho uthi s em pl oym en t. Th e cl ai m

he bri ng s i s p reci se ly wha t t he FELA was m ean t t o rem edy . Se e Atc hiso n, To pe ka , &Sa nt e Fe Ry. Co . v. Buel l , 48 0 U.S. 5 57 , 56 1 (1 98 7) (“ Co ng res s en act edth e FELA to pro vi de a fed eral rem edy forrai lro ad worke rs who su fferpe rs on al in juri es as ares ul t o f th e n eg li ge nc e o f th ei r em pl oyer . . . .”). Co ns id eri ng th es e d iff

eren ces , th e le gi sl at iv e p ur po se be hi ndth e FELA and th e FSAA al so weig hs ag ai ns t s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Nor fo lkSo ut he rn . As th e Supr em e Co urt n ot edin McBri de , th e FELA was en act edto co un te ractth e “ ha rs h an d t ech ni cal ” ru le s o f st at e co m m on law. McBri de , 56 4 U.S. at__ , 13 1 S .Ct. at 26 38 (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Perm it ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o No rfo lk 15 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 15 of 22So ut he rnwou ldfly in t he face of t ha t fo rg iv in g s ta nd ard . Se e a ls o Ro ge rs , 35 2

U.S. at 5 09 (“ Co ng res s . . . rem ov edth e fet te rs whi ch ho bb le d t he ful l p la y of t he ba si c co ng res si on al in te nt io n t o l eav e to th e fac t-f in di ng fun ct io n o f th e jury the de ci si on of t he pri m ary qu es ti on rai se d i n [F ELA] cas es -wh ethe r em pl oyer fau lt pl ay edan y

part i n t he em

pl oyee's m is hap.” ). Alt ho ug h t he FELA do es no t an d was ne ve r in te nd edto co nv ertrai lro adem pl oyers i nt o i ns ur ers , Ell is v. Uni on Paci fi c Rai lr oa d C

o. , 32 9 U.S. 6 49 , 65 3 (1 94 7) , itcert ai nl y was i nt en de d t o p ro te ctan d co m pe ns at e th os e em

pl oyees wh o wer e in

jure d i n t he li ne of dut y

by defi ci en t o r de fect iv e equi pm en t. Lik e th e Rog er

s Co urt, we ar e “ [c]og ni zan t o f [o ur ] du ty to ef fectua te th e in te nt io n o f th e Co ng res s t o s ecu re the rig htto a jury det erm in at io n.” Rog er s , 35 2 U.S. at 5 09 . Im

po si ng a jud ge -m ad e ru le to gra ntsu m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se a pl ai nt iff is un ab le to id en ti fy

th e rai l ca r on whi ch hi s i nju ry tak es pl ace i s co nt rary to su ch anin te nt . B. Nex t, we co ns id er the sec on d i ss ue of wh ethe r, ev enif t he di st ric t co urt h ad ap pl ie d t he pro pe r st an da rd , su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Nor fo lkSo uthe rnwou ldst il l ha ve be enap pr op ria te . Thi s i ss ue hi ng es up onth e su ffi ci en cy of S tri ck la nd ’s te st im on y to de featth e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. 16 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 16 of 22Nor fo lkSo ut he rnco nt en ds th at , eve n i f th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er ca nn otbe

up he ldon it s o wn re as on in g, i t s ho ul d n on ethe le ss be affi rm edon alt ern at iv e gr ou nd s. Sp eci fic al ly, ev enth ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt o rd er m ad e n o e xp li ci t m en ti on of t he su ffi ci en cy of S tri ck la nd ’s tes ti m on y , Norf ol k S ou th ern urg es us 1 3 to fin d t ha t Stric kl an d’s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y is in su ffi ci en t, s tand in g a lo ne , to de m on st rat e a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact . Even were tha t n otth e cas e, Nor fo lk So ut he rnarg ue s, Stric kl an d’s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y m at eri al ly diff

ers fro m th e affi da vi t h e subm it te d t o t he di st ric t co urt, wh ic h d em on st rat es th e im pr op rie ty of rel y in g o n h is tes ti m on y

as t he so le ba si s fo r hi s cl ai m . Und er ei th er ar gu m en t, Nor fo lkSo ut he rnco nt en ds th atsu m m ary jud gm en t was pro pe rly ent eredon it s be ha lf. W e n eedno t s pe ndm

uc h t im e d is cu ss in g No rfo lkSo ut he rn ’s firs t co nt en ti on . Effect iv el y , Norfo lkSo ut he rnarg ue s t ha t s om e ev id en ce i s m or e co m pe ll in g t ha n o th er ev id en ce. Ou r cas e la w m ak es no su ch di st in ct io n; no r do th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e as si gn di ffer en t wei gh t t o d iff eren t t y pe s o f
Upon re view of the district court’s fa ilure to rec og nize St rickland’ s testimonial 1 3 evidenc e, we are left with only one conc lusion: t hat the district cour t eng ag ed in exactly

the ty pe of we ighingthat it its elf re cognized as improper. The district court’s 35-pa g e orde r fa iled to explain why , even in the f ace of Strickland’s testimony , there wer e no g enuine issues of ma terial fac t that would require a fa ct-finde r. Instead, the district c ourt discre dited and disreg arde d Strickland’s testimony , concludingthat it constitut ed “a lleg ations, not actual e vidence .” Dist. Ct. Orde r at 33 . This disti nction is flawed a nd is not supported by

our ca se law. 17 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 17 of 22ev id en ce. Fed . R. Evi d. 4 02 (“ Rel ev an t ev id en ce i s ad m is si bl e . . . .”). Whi le so m e

te st im on y m ay be subjec t t o c red ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns , su ch cred ib il ity de te rm in at io ns are fo r th e fac t fi nd er, wh ic h i n t hi s ca se is th e jury. Ander so n , 47 7 U.S. at 2 55 . Our ca se law re co gn iz es th at , eve n i n t he ab se nc e o f co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce, a p la in ti ff’s o wn t es ti m on y m ay be su ffi ci en t t o wi th st an d s umm ary jud gm en t. Se e Ken ne tt -Mu rr ay Co rp . v. Bon e , 62 2 F .2d88 7, 8 93 -9 4 (5 th Cir . 19 80 ) (h ol di ng th atpl ai nt iff ’s dep os it io n t es ti m on y , eve n i n t he co nt ex t o f a po ss ib ly con tra di ct ory

subs eque ntaffi da vi t, was su ffi ci en t t o s urvi ve de fen da nt ’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n) . Em pl oyin g t he di st ric t co urt’s re as on in g, wi th ou t 1 4
m or e, wou ldres ul t i n s umm ary jud gm en t i n ade fen da nt ’s fav oron ev ery oc cas io n whe re the pl ai nt iff

can no t p oi ntto supp orti ng ex tri ns ic ev id en ce. Su ch a res ul t was ne it he r in te nd edby Con gr es s i n p as si ng th e FELA andth e FSAA, n orby thi s Ci rcu itin it s ap pl ic at io n o f st an da rd s fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Nor fo lkSo ut he rn ’s sec on d c on te nt io n d em an ds m or e at te nt io n. As di sc us se d abo ve , su

pr a , Norfo lkSo ut he rndi sp ut es th e fo rce o f Stric kl an d’s te st im on y in li gh t o f ap pa ren t co nt rad ic ti on s i n i ts subs ta nc e. The m os t ap pa ren t co nt rad ic ti on rel at es to th e le ve l o f fo rce e xe rte d b y Str ic kl an d i n d is en ga gi ng th e

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), the 1 4 Eleventh Circuit adopte d all Fifth Circuit ca se law de cided prior to October 1, 1981. 18 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 18 of 22ha ndbr ak e th ro ug h t he us e o f th e h an db rak e whe el . In h is de po si ti on tak enon

Mar ch9, 2 01 1, St ric kl an d t es ti fie d tha t h e ap pl ie d “ no rm al ” an d “ reas on ab le ” fo rce t o t he whee l i n a n e ffo rt t o d is en ga ge th e h an db rak e. Late r, aft er No rfo lk So ut he rnfil edit s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, St ric kl an d s ub m it te d a n a ffi da vi t on Octo be r 11 , 20 11 , m od ifyin g t ha t ea rli er s ta te m en t. In t he affi da vi t, h e st at es 1 5 th athi s ef

fo rts were g reat er than n orm al an d wer e “be y on d t he us ua l an d reas on ab le for ce tha t s ho ul d h av e b een ne ces sa ry to rel eas e th at[ha ndbr ak e].” 1 6 Nor fo lkSo ut he rnno w arg ue s t ha t t he se st at em en ts can no t co -ex is t an d t ha t, the re be in g n o re li ab le tes ti m on y reg ard in g t he cau se of S tri ck la nd ’s in jury, su m m ary jud gm en t i s p ro pe r. W e fi nd Rol li ns v. Tech So uth, In c. , 83 3 F .2d15 25 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ), al th ou gh de ci de d i n adi ffer en t co nt ex t, p ers ua si ve . In Rol li ns , a wom ansu edhe r fo rm er em

pl oyer forag e an d s ex di sc riminat io n. Athe r de po si ti on , sh e h ad te st ifi edreg ard in g n um ero us ag e-b ia se d s ta te m en ts th atsh e cl ai m edhe r co worke rs ha d m ad e. Rol li ns , 83 3 F .2dat 1 53 0. No ne th el es s, the di st ric t co urt gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n h er em pl oyer’s fav or , fin di ng th atth os e st at em en ts , Indeed, the rein Strickland state d that he “be lieve[d] that [hi s] deposit ion testimony has 1 5 been ta ken out of c ontext ” and that the “mea nings [Norfolk Southern] attache d to [ his] deposition testimony

are not consistent with what [he] intended to communicate .” This differ enceis an important one, as N orfolk Southern a rgues that, if the leve l of 1 6 forc e used w as “nor

mal,” it cannot be held liable as a matter of la

w. 19 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 19 of 22whi chwere t he bu lkof R ol li ns ’ ev id en ce, were in su ffi ci en t t o ra is e an in fere nc e

un de r th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s st an da rdem pl oyed i n the co nt ex t o f di sc riminat io n cas es . Thi s d eci si onwas p red ic at ed , in pa rt, o n t he factth atanaffi da vi t l at er

1 7
subm it te d b y

Ro ll in s co ul d h av e b een in te rp ret edas c on fli ct in g wi th he r pr io r de po si ti on tes ti m on y , andin cert ai n l im it edcir cu m st an ces , su ch anaffi da vi t co ul d be di sr eg ard edas ash am . Id
. at 1 53 0 (c it in g Van T. Ju nkin s & Ass oc s., In c. v. U.S. In du s., In c. , 73 6 F .2d65 6, 6 58 -5 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) ). On re vi ew, we he ldth atRo ll in s’ tes ti m on y was s uf fic ie ntto de m on st rat e a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact . Id
. at 1 53 0- 31 . Afterco ns id eri ng Ro ll in s’ de po si ti on tes ti m on y

in co nju nc ti on with h er s ub se qu en t af fid av it , we st at edth at

“ [w]e do no t b el ie ve th atRo ll in s’ affi da vi t s o c om pl et el y co nt rad ic ts he r de po si ti on as t o warran t i ts ex cl us io n.” Id
. at 1 53 1. In st ead , her affi da vi t m erel y el ab or at edup on anareaof i nq ui ry th atha d n otbe enrai se d a t d ep os it io n. Id
. In fin di ng ot he rwis e an d “ ev al ua ti ng th e qua li ty of” Ro ll in s’ evi de nc e, th e d is tri ct co urt h ad“ st rayed fro m

it s p ro pe r ro le an d m ad e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns .” Id
. at 15 31 . Suc h c red ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns , bas edup on th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to weig h t he co m

pe ti ng ev id en ce, s ho ul d h av e d em an de d t ha t t he de fen da nt ’s m ot io n

Of c ourse, the district c ourt was r efe rring to the burden- shifting f

rame work e nunciated 1 7 by the United States Supreme Court in McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 20 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 20 of 22fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t b e d en ie d. Id. Ourreas on in g i n Rol li ns is no les s ap pr op ria te he re. With ou t an y do ub t, Stric kl an d’s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y m ay be readto co nt rad ic t h is swo rnaffi da vi t, pa rti cu la rly as i t p ert ai ns to th e le ve l o f fo rce h e u se d t o d is en ga ge th e whe el of th e h an db rak e in qu es ti on . If th ere wer e n o way tha t St ric kl an d’s s ta te m en ts co ul d be readto ge th er, p erh ap s No rfo lkSo ut he rnwou ldbe co rrec t an d S tri ck land ’s affi da vi t co ul d b e d is reg ardas ash am . Se e Van T. Ju nkin s & Ass oc s., In c. , 73 6 F.2 d a t 6 57 (no ti ng th at , un de r sh am affi da vi t co nc ep t, “ [w]hena pa rty has gi ve n cl ear a ns wers to un am

bi gu ou s que st io ns whi ch ne ga te th e ex is te nc e o f an y ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact , th atpa rty cann otth erea fte r cre at e su ch anis su e wit h a n a ffi da vi t tha t m erel y co nt rad ic ts , witho utex pl an at io n, p rev io us ly giv en cl ear t es ti m on y .”). Howev er, we d o n otbe li ev e th atStr ic kl an d’s d ep os it io n and affi da vi t ar e n eces sa ril y

so di rect ly con tra ry

to on e an ot he r th ata de te rm in at io n a s a m atte r of

law m ay be m ad e. Acco rd

Bon e , 62 2 F .2dat 8 93 -9 5 (h ol di ng , in si m il ar co nt ex t, tha t s umm ary jud gm en t was im pr op er). In st ead , as St ric kl an d po in ts ou t i n h is affi da vi t, i t i s p os si bl e th atth e ap pa ren t co nt rad ic ti onde riv es no t fro m pu rp os efu l fabr ic at io n b utin st eadfro m di al ect ic al m is un de rs ta nd in g. Un de r su ch cir cu m st an ces , any app aren t co nt rad ic ti onbe co m es “ anis su e o f cre di bi li ty or go [es ] to th e wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce.” Tip pe ns , 80 5 F .2dat 9 53 . 21 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 21 of 22Whe re a fa ct -fi nd er i s re qu ire d t o wei gh a de po ne nt ’s cred ib il it y , su m m ary jud gm en t i s s im

pl y im pr op er. Acco rd

Rol li ns , 83 3 F .2dat 1 53 1- 32 . Summ ary jud gm en t o pe rat es as ajud ic ia l s afet y -v al ve , perm it ti ng th e co urt t o d eci de a cas e as a m atte r of

law o nl y wher e th ere a re n o g enui ne is su es of m at eri al factth atare rel ev an t t o t he pa rti es ’ di sp ut e; itdo es no t p erm it , ho wev er, the co urt t o m ak e a fin al de te rm in at io n wh ere s uc h g en ui ne is su es of m at eri al factex is t. Id
. Here, ev en gi ve n t he po te nt ia l co nf

li ctbe twee n S tri ck la nd ’s dep os it io n t es ti m on y an d h is affi da vi t, we h av e n o d oubtth atth e “ feat he rwei gh t” st an dard s o f a FELA act io n are s at is fie d. Itis fora jury to m ak e th e n eces sa ry cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns . IV. Acco rd in gl y , hav in g re vi ewedth e rec or d anden te rta in edora l ar gu m en t, we REVERSE th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o No rfo lk So ut he rnan d REMAND for pro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on .

22 Case: 11-15589 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 22 of 22