Opinion ID: 2978463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The MU Receptacle

Text: Williams has also not provided sufficient evidence of either negligence or notice regarding the allegedly defective MU receptacle. Williams’s evidence regarding negligence is not sufficient because he has not presented any evidence linking the allegedly snow-filled MU receptacle to any action by the defendant. He testified that he “had no idea of when [the MU] lid was ever opened or whoever handled that locomotive.” Without additional evidence, no reasonable jury could find that the defendant’s negligence was responsible for the spring-loaded receptacle’s becoming snow-filled.3 Further, Williams has not produced any direct evidence of notice and, from all accounts, the malfunctioning MU receptacle presented a previously unknown problem. In Van Gorder, this court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in part because no witness had ever encountered the relevant problem before the incident that caused the plaintiff’s injury. 509 F.3d at 271. This court concluded that the defendant had no reason to know that such a defect existed or that it might cause injury. Id. Similarly, no witnesses in this case had ever seen an MU receptacle become jammed open by snow, and thus there is no basis on which a jury could conclude that Grand Trunk knew or should have known that this was a danger. As with the slippery track, the only person who ever 3 The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in FELA cases, Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 42 F.2d 111, 113 (6th Cir. 1930), but Williams did not raise this issue on appeal. Further, this doctrine is not applicable here because Williams has not presented sufficient evidence to show that it was improbable that there was any cause other than the negligence of the employer or that this is the kind of accident that does not ordinarily occur absent negligence by the employer. See id. -7- No. 09-1017 Williams v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. observed the allegedly malfunctioning equipment was Williams, and he did not notify anyone of this problem. Williams has thus failed to produce sufficient evidence that any “defect was known, or should or could have been known, by defendant, with opportunity to correct it.” Miller, 317 F.2d at 695.