Summary
holding that § 240.305 was enacted for the safety of employees
Summary of this case from Benda v. BNSF Ry. Co.Opinion
Case No. 2:06-CV-250.
December 31, 2007
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER
Plaintiff Lonnie Waggoner filed suit against his former employer, Ohio Central Railroad, Inc. ("OCR"), seeking to recover under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., for injuries he sustained during the course of his employment.
On November 27, 2007, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Court found that OCR had violated 49 C.F.R. § 220.49, a federal regulation governing the use of radio communications in connection with the shoving of a locomotive, and 49 C.F.R. § 240.305(a)(2), a federal regulation governing the operation of locomotives at excessive rates of speed. The Court found that these violations constituted negligence per se, and satisfied the elements of duty and breach.
With respect to the issue of causation, the Court found that because Plaintiff's injuries were caused, at least in part, by the violations of these regulations, OCR was subject to liability. Quoting 45 U.S.C. § 53, the Court further noted that "the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee." (Mem. Op. Order at 18). Although the Court granted Plaintiff's motion, it made "no determination . . . of whether Plaintiff's own negligence also contributed to his injuries." (Id. at 21). It concluded that "[a] jury will have to determine the question of contributory negligence along with the issue of damages." (Id.).
On December 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to modify that last portion of the Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Record at 46). Plaintiff argues that, although the Court quoted a portion of 45 U.S.C. § 53, it overlooked an applicable exception contained therein:
In all actions . . . brought against any such common carrier by railroad . . . to recover damages for personal injuries to an employee . . . the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee: Provided, That no such employee who may be injured or killed shall be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to the injury or death of such employee.45 U.S.C. § 53 (emphasis added). Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation, such as 49 C.F.R. § 220.49 and 49 C.F.R. § 240.305(a)(2), are deemed to be "statutes" under this section of FELA. See 45 U.S.C. § 54a. Plaintiff argues that since these regulations were clearly enacted for the safety of employees, and their violation contributed to his injuries, any contributory negligence on his part does not come into play, and cannot be used to reduce any damages to which Plaintiff might be entitled. The Court agrees.
Defendant argues that because the Memorandum Opinion and Order was not a final appealable order, it is not subject to amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). While this is true, Plaintiff's motion is not based on that Rule. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) offers a viable alternative. It states, "[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Such a correction is appropriate in this case because the Court previously inadvertently overlooked the exception set forth in 45 U.S.C. § 53.
As Plaintiff points out in his reply brief, Defendant completely ignores the substance of Plaintiff's motion, i.e., the applicability of the statutory exception to the comparative negligence provision. Instead, Defendant argues that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion because there is ample evidence that Plaintiff's own negligence was a contributing cause — if not the sole cause — of the accident and that the issue should, therefore, be submitted to the jury. The Court, however, has already held that Plaintiff's injuries were caused, at least in part, by OCR's violation of the safety regulations. Therefore, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 53, even if Plaintiff were partially to blame for the accident, his negligence cannot be considered by a jury, and damages cannot be apportioned.
For the reasons stated above, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to modify the November 27, 2007 Memorandum Opinion Order (Record at 46). The Court STRIKES the following language from page 21 of that Memorandum Opinion Order (Record at 44):
The Court makes no determination, however, of whether Plaintiff's own negligence also contributed to his injuries. A jury will have to determine the question of contributory negligence along with the issue of damages.
Unless the parties are able to negotiate a settlement agreement before then, a trial — limited to the issue of damages — will be held, as currently scheduled, on April 28, 2008.