Case Name: BEATY CHEVROLET COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, HYB, Inc.; Harper Vehicles, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-23
Citations: 214 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 05-5973
Parties: BEATY CHEVROLET COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, HYB, Inc.; Harper Vehicles, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, DefendantAppellee.
Judges: BEFORE: MARTIN, NORRIS, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
BEATY CHEVROLET COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, HYB, Inc.; Harper Vehicles, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, DefendantAppellee.
No. 05-5973.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 23, 2007.
Thomas J. Vozar, Lasko & Lind, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant. John W. Baker, Jr., Emily H. Thompson, Baker, O’Kane, Atkins & Thompson, Knoxville, TN, Benjamin R. Slater, III, Lemle & Kelleher, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
BEFORE: MARTIN, NORRIS, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Beaty Chevrolet Company appeals from a grant of summary judgment to defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Jurisdiction is grounded upon diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff contended that a chemical spill from defendant's railroad equipment approximately five miles distant damaged its property. However, as the district court properly noted, plaintiffs evidence at best pointed to the possibility that defendant's conduct caused the damage, and that was insufficient to prove causation under Tennessee law.
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant. Because the reasoning which supports judgment for defendant has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.
The district court is AFFIRMED upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Memorandum Opinion filed on May 18, 2005.