Opinion ID: 1359023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: LIA Claim

Text: Finally, Wright argues that the LIA should apply because the locomotive was in use as shown by its preparation for imminent departure. The district court determined that the locomotive was not in use at the time of the accident and granted AMR's summary judgment motion. In reaching its conclusion, the district court noted that Wright was injured while the locomotive was parked on a repair in place track with blue flags at the ends of the locomotive and on the throttle and locks on the switch. Further, the locomotive was still undergoing its daily inspection and it had not been released to the crew for use. For authority, the district court cited an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion Maynard v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., No. 94-1285, 1995 WL 131363 (4th Cir.1995) (unpublished per curiam), and a North Dakota district court decision footnote describing the usage of blue flags, see Carder v. Ind. Harbor Belt R.R., 205 F.Supp.2d 981, 985 n. 3 (N.D.Ind.2002). We review de novo a district court's grant or denial of summary judgment. M.Y. v. Spec. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Minneapolis Pub. Sch., 544 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir.2008). Under the LIA, a railroad carrier may not use or allow to be used a locomotive... on its railroad line unless the locomotive and its parts and appurtenances are, inter alia, in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury. 49 U.S.C. § 20701(1). If the LIA applies, then the railroad will be held strictly liable and may not rely on the defenses of contributory negligence or assumption of risk. 45 U.S.C. §§ 53-54. The in use limitation gives the railroad an opportunity to remedy hazardous conditions before strict liability attaches to claims made by injured workers. Whether the LIA applies turns on whether the locomotive was in use, which is a question of law for the district court. Steer v. Burlington N., Inc., 720 F.2d 975, 977 n. 4 (8th Cir.1983) (applying the Boiler Inspection Act, which is the precursor to the LIA). In Steer, we held that the locomotive was not in use because it was being serviced in a place of repair. Id. at 976. The plaintiff was injured while repairing a locomotive that had been taken to the `Asparagus Patch,' a place for removal of locomotives and their repair. Id. We relied on the Fourth Circuit's reasoning that `injuries directly resulting from the inspection, repair, or servicing of railroad equipment located at a maintenance facility' are excluded from the Boiler Inspection Act's coverage. Id. at 976-77 (quoting Angell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 618 F.2d 260, 262 (4th Cir.1980)). Therefore, we upheld the district court's finding that the locomotive was not in use. Id. at 977. Other than Steer, we have not decided a case involving the standard to apply to determine whether a locomotive is in use. Other circuits have addressed this issue. In Angell, the Fourth Circuit held that the locomotive was in use where the railway had okayed the locomotive for service. 618 F.2d at 262. The plaintiff, a machinist, was injured while the engine was on a service track and had been blue flagged. Id. at 261. At the time of the injury, all servicing, maintenance and inspection work had already been performed. Id. The court noted that Congress excluded injuries directly resulting from the inspection, repair, or servicing of railroad equipment located at a maintenance facility. Id. at 262 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 1974, 61st Cong., 3d Sess. 3 (1911)). Angell involved an injury that occurred after inspection, repair, and servicing had been completed and during the uncoupling of a `readied' engine in preparation for moving it to a nearby track to pull a train a few hours later. Id. Because the engine was not in need of further repair or servicing and had been okayed by railway officials, it was in use and the statute applied despite the presence of blue flags. Id. Subsequently, the Fourth Circuit revisited its in use analysis and adopted a multi-factor test to determine whether a train is in use. Deans v. CSX Transp., Inc., 152 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.1998). In Deans, the court held that to determine whether a train is `in use' for purposes of the FSAA [Federal Safety Appliances Act], the primary factors we consider are where the train was located at the time of the accident and the activity of the injured party. Id. The court expressly rejected any analysis that would make a single factor, such as release from inspection, dispositive. [8] The court ultimately held that the locomotive was in use because the train already had its engine coupled to it and was standing on a track in the rail yard in preparation for imminent departurenot in storage or waiting to be moved into a repair location. Id. at 330. Wright relies heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Brady v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, 303 U.S. 10, 11-12, 58 S.Ct. 426, 82 L.Ed. 614 (1938), [9] and interprets it as compelling reversal. In Brady, a rail employee was injured while inspecting a car that was placed on a receiving track temporarily for an inspection. Id. at 11-12, 58 S.Ct. 426. The Court held that such a car is in use so long as it would continue to its next destination if it passed inspection. Id. at 13, 58 S.Ct. 426. The Court noted that the case was not a situation in which a defective car had reached a place of repair. Id. Brady is distinguishable, however, because the locomotive in that case never ceased to be in use during its temporary stop on the receiving track because it was still in use, though motionless. Id. Brady does demonstrate that undergoing inspection, without more, is probably insufficient to establish that a train is not in use. See id. But in our case, it is undisputed that the train was not in use when initially placed on the RIP track for the night and blue-flagged. The crucial issue is determining whether the locomotive could be legally considered in use at the time of Wright's accident. We hold that determination of whether a train is in use is to be made based upon the totality of the circumstances at the time of the injury. Based upon this record, we hold the district court correctly concluded that the locomotive was not in use in denying Wright's summary judgment motion. The district court took into account that the locomotive was parked on an RIP track and marked by blue flags located on both ends of the locomotive and on its throttle. [10] In fact, the inspector had placed locks on the switch. The court noted that the locomotive was still undergoing inspection or service and had not been released to its crew. The court mentioned, but apparently gave little weight to, the scheduled 7:00 a.m. departure and Wright's activity. In granting summary judgment, the district court concluded that, [u]nder these circumstances, the locomotive cannot be said to have been `in use.' The trial itself produced conflicting testimony regarding the completion of the inspection and whether Wright had permission to enter the locomotive. Although the locomotive stood on an RIP track, it was not at a maintenance facility. The train was scheduled for departure at 7:00 a.m., and Wright's injury occurred between 6:30 a.m. and 7:10 a.m. At the time of the accident, Wright, a conductor trainee, was loading his gear onto the train ostensibly in preparation for departure once the locomotive was cleared. No single fact present is conclusive. The district court placed substantial weight on the location of the locomotive and its blue-flagged status and locked switch. The court properly considered this status in its analysis as a significant but not dispositive factor. The blue flag is widely recognized throughout the railroad industry as a signal, warning crews not to move locomotives in the surrounding area. Carder, 205 F.Supp.2d at 985. In fact, blue flagging is mandated as part of the regulations of the Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Operating Procedures. [11] The court properly considered these factors and other surrounding circumstances in reaching its ultimate conclusion. Therefore, the court did not err in determining that the locomotive was not in use at the time of the accident.