Smith v CSX Transp., Inc.
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 17, 2005
Supreme Court, Onondaga County
Ronald A. Smith, Plaintiff,
against
CSX Transportation, Inc., Defendant.
02-5544
ANDREW S. GREENBERG, ESQ.
KENNY & KENNY, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
315 West Fayette Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
ROBERT A. BARRER, ESQ.
HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
P.O. Box 4878
Syracuse, NY 13221-4878
John V. Centra, J.
Plaintiff is seeking, through this action, to recover for personal injuries allegedly suffered on January 27, 2000 while working as a yard man for PTL Truck Lines, LLC (hereinafter "PTL"). He alleges in his complaint that he was actually an employee of Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. (hereinafter "CSXT") at the time. He claims that as a CSXT employee, he is entitled to recover because CSXT was negligent (1) in failing to maintain a reasonably safe place to work pursuant to the Federal Employers Liability Act (hereinafter "FELA"); (2) due to the lack of an adequate handhold or grab iron on a vehicle owned by CSXT pursuant to the Safety Appliance Act (hereinafter "SAA"); (3) due to the fact that the structure upon which he was working was not reasonably safe; (4) due to a violation of section 200 of the [*2]Labor Law; (5) due to a violation of section 240 of the Labor Law; and (6) due to a violation of section 241 of the Labor Law.
CSXT has moved for summary judgment on the claims under FELA and section 200 of the Labor Law contending that it was not Plaintiff's employer. Under both of these sections, liability is placed on an employer for injuries suffered by its employees where the employer failed to provide the employee with safe working conditions. CSXT argues that based on Plaintiff's deposition testimony and his application for employment, his employer was PTL, that he never was employed by CSXT, and was in fact employed by PTL on the date and time and place of the accident.
CSXT also contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law §§240 and 241 causes of action. Section 240 involves the "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure". Section 241 involves "construction, excavation and demolition work". CSXT argues that, in this case, there was no construction, demolition, repairs or alteration of any structure occurring at the time of the incident and that there was no activity being performed on the railcars other than the unloading and loading of trailers.
CSXT maintains it is entitled to summary judgment on the SAA claim because there are no material issues of fact regarding whether CSXT owned the structure upon which Plaintiff was working at the time of the incident. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the lack of an adequate handhold or grab iron. However, CSXT argues that the handhold and grab irons that are relevant under the SAA have no application to the facts here. The SAA requires that handhold and grab irons be present for individuals in coupling and uncoupling vehicles and on the roof and top of ladders. Here, Plaintiff was not coupling or uncoupling vehicles at the time of his fall. He did not fall because a handhold or grab iron was not present. Rather, he testified at his deposition that he fell because a lock on a trailer allegedly broke. He does not allege there were no handhold or grab irons on the railcars upon which he worked.
Last, CSXT argues that although Plaintiff alleges that CSXT owned the structure upon which he was working and is liable for his injuries under common law negligence, Plaintiff was unable to identify the owner of either the rail car or the trailer upon which he was working at the time of the incident.
Plaintiff has cross-moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff [*3]alleges that he was an employee of CSXT as defined by FELA and the SAA. An employee of a trucking company may be a "dual employee" of a railroad for purposes of FELA. The employee could be a borrowed servant, or he could be deemed acting for two masters, or he could be a sub-servant. The overriding factor is whether the railroad directed or controlled any significant aspect of Plaintiff's work. Here, Plaintiff contends that his work in locking and unloading the containers and loading new containers on the rail car was supervised directly by CSXT's employee. The supervising employee directed Plaintiff to make changes in the manner in which the boxes were locked or loaded. The CSXT supervisor had full authority to direct the manner in which Plaintiff secured the containers which was a specific task that Plaintiff was undertaking at the time of his fall and injury. Based on the above, Plaintiff maintains that he was employed by CSXT at the time of his injury pursuant to FELA and SAA.
Plaintiff argues that under FELA, he need only show that Defendant's actions played a part, even the slightest, in producing the injury. Although generally, a Plaintiff much show actual or constructive notice, where a piece of equipment is rusty, as it was here, Plaintiff posits that it can be inferred that the defect was of sufficient duration for CSXT to have discovered it.
Plaintiff further argues that under SAA, once a violation of the act is established, only causation remains as an issue. A violation of the statute may be shown by proving the absence of a required device, or that such device was defective or failed to function properly. Plaintiff claims that it is a violation to fail to provide secure grab bars or hand holds, ladders or sill steps. Here, CSXT failed to provide any ladder, grab bars or hand holds for use by Plaintiff. The bullet lock handle that Plaintiff regularly used as a grab bar replacement failed due with to its rusting out and falling off.
Plaintiff also claims to be entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law §§240 and 241 because a railroad car is a structure under the Labor Law. Liability under the Labor law is not limited to accidents on construction sites. Rather, §240 activity includes construction, erection and alteration of a structure. An alteration is defined as a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of a structure. Here, Plaintiff's work was to alter the railroad car by reconfiguring that. His work was to move and hoist container boxes off the rail car until it was empty and then move other boxes on to the rail car. He argues that this was an alteration of the rail car [*4]and the container boxes. Also, part of Plaintiff's work was to erect a rail car with a double tier of boxes. According to Plaintiff, this satisfies the statutory definition for erecting.
For section 241, there must be construction. Some of the activities specifically named in the definition of construction are hoisting and moving of buildings or other structures. Plaintiff contends that the hoisting by crane and moving of container boxes on and off the railroad car is the moving of a structure and is, accordingly, construction.
As to the issue of whether Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, "[p]rincipal factors in determining whether a special relationship exists include the right to control, the method of payment, the furnishing of equipment, the right to discharge and the relative nature of the work. . . . [K]ey to the determination is who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee's work." Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc., 223 AD2d 787, 787-788 (3d Dep't 1996).
In this case, Plaintiff claims that his work was controlled and directed by Defendant despite the fact that he was nominally employed by PTL. The court finds that there are questions of fact as to whether Plaintiff was a special employee of Defendant, and thus, denies summary judgment on the FELA, negligence and Labor Law §200 causes of action to both parties regarding this issue.
As to the Labor Law §§240 and 241 causes of action, the court finds that Plaintiff's work did not involve the "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure". See Labor Law §240. As such, the Labor Law §240 cause of action is dismissed.
Labor Law §241(6) requires contractors and owners "when constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith" to comply with certain requirements. This court finds that there was no constructing or demolishing of any buildings, nor was there any excavating. Therefore, Labor Law §241(6) is inapplicable to the facts of this case and is dismissed.
As to the SAA cause of action, Plaintiff claims that his injury was cause by the lack of an adequate handhold or grab iron on a vehicle owned by CSXT. The SAA provides, in part, that a railroad carrier may use "a vehicle only if it is equipped with secure grab irons or handholds on its ends and sides for greater security to individuals in coupling and uncoupling vehicles". 49 [*5]U.S.C. §20302(a)(2). Plaintiff alleges that he was required to stand on a ledge of a vehicle that had no ladder, grab bar or handhold to hold onto and was provided no safety device. Defendant contends that the handholds and grab irons relevant under the SAA have no application to the facts at bar. The court finds that there is a question of fact as to whether the failure to provide grab bars or handholds where Plaintiff was working was relevant to his fall. Therefore, the court denies both parties' motions for summary judgment on the SAA cause of action.
Defendant is to submit an Order on notice.
JOHN V. CENTRA
Supreme Court Justice
Dated: August 17, 2005
Syracuse, New York
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
