Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 19-2536 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After plaintiff was injured while serving as an engineer for UP when the train he was operating partially derailed because of a misaligned switch, he filed suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), alleging claims of FELA negligence per se and negligence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and grant of UP's motion for summary judgment. In regard to plaintiff's negligence per se claim, the court held that plaintiff failed to present any evidence that would raise a genuine issue of material fact that UP "played any part, even the slightest" to cause the switch to be moved from its designated position. Rather, the evidence showed the switch was misaligned by a criminal act of a third party. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that any act of a UP employee contributed to the misalignment. Therefore, UP committed no act violating the regulation requiring switches to be aligned per the railroad's written policy.
In regard to the negligence claim, the court held that UP cannot be liable under a negligence theory for failing to properly align the switch unless it knew or had reason to know it was misaligned. In this case, there was no evidence that UP was aware the switch was not properly aligned. Likewise, plaintiff presented no evidence that UP failed to reasonably protect its keys or had reason to know that the security of its keys or locks were compromised; plaintiff proffered no evidence of an industry standard or other evidence that could lead a jury to find UP negligent for failing to remove the switch or track; and plaintiff failed to point to any evidence that would establish that UP was negligent if it failed to install additional or different devices to prevent someone from tampering with the switch.
Court Description: [Williams, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Employers' Liability Act. On his claim that Union Pacific was negligent per se for violating the regulation requiring that the main track switch be lined and locked for main line movement per Union Pacific's written policy, plaintiff needed to show Union Pacific caused the mainline switch to be moved from its default position to the position directing the train to a siding; plaintiff failed to present any evidence that would raise a genuine issue of material fact that Union Pacific played any part, even the slightest, to cause the switch to be moved from its designated position; the evidence showed, instead, that a criminal act by a third person caused the misalignment and Union Pacific committed no act violating the regulation requiring switches to be aligned per the railroad's written policy; Union Pacific could not be liable under a negligence theory for failure to properly align the switch unless it knew or had reason to know it was misaligned, and plaintiff did not present any such evidence; nor was there any evidence that Union Pacific knew that switch keys had been stolen from an Amtrak facility before the accident occurred; the actions Union Pacific took to prevent movement of the switch - including spiking, locking and anchoring the switch to prevent misalignment, together with periodic inspection - were reasonable and there was no evidence to show that Union Pacific was negligent in failing to take additional measures to prevent tampering. Judge Colloton, dissenting. [ August 25, 2020 ]
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.