Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A reasonable jury could conclude a railroad company knew or should have known about a defective switch that led to a worker’s injury, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in reversing a lower court’s grant of summary judgment.
Martin Jaranowski worked as a conductor for Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company and injured his neck while operating a railroad switch in 2020.
Jaranowski sued the company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging he was injured because the railroad failed to maintain the switch properly. He accused the railroad of ordinary negligence and negligence per se based on alleged violations of Federal Railroad Administration Track Safety Standards.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, granted summary judgment to the railroad, concluding Jaranowski failed to present evidence that would support a finding that the railroad had actual or constructive notice of any defect in the switch before he was injured.
The federal safety standards, the district court ruled, are violated only when a railroad has actual or constructive notice of track defects.
But the 7th Circuit reversed, finding Jaranowski presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to whether the railroad at least should have known the switch was defective before he was injured.
The 7th Circuit did agree with the district court’s judgment that actual or constructive notice is required to violate the federal safety standards.
The appellate court ruled a reasonable jury could find the switch was defective before Jaranowski was injured, in part because a certified inspector studied photos of the switch taken soon after the injury and concluded vegetation and debris could have interfered with the switch’s operation.
The railroad argued that even if the vegetation interfered with operation, there was no evidence the railroad knew or should have known about it. The company cited an inspection 11 days before the injury that indicated no defects.
Jaranowski argued a jury could conclude the vegetation couldn’t have possibly grown in just the 11 days between the inspection and injury.
A reasonable jury, the 7th Circuit ruled, could accept Jaranowski’s account and conclude the railroad’s inspection was “performed without due care.”
As an alternative theory of liability, Jaranowski argued that even if the railroad didn’t have actual or constructive notice of the defective switch, the switch established negligence per se because the track violated the federal track safety standards. Among other things, he argued the evidence could show violations of a requirement that says vegetation on or near the track should be controlled so it doesn’t interfere with a rail worker’s duties.
The railroad argued the safety standards are violated only when the owner of the track has actual or constructive notice of the alleged violation.
The 7th Circuit agreed with the railroad and ruled Jaranowski didn’t meet that burden.
However, the 7th Circuit’s ruling that there is sufficient evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to find the railroad knew or should have known of the defects to the switch already means summary judgment shouldn’t have been granted.
The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Judge David Hamilton wrote the opinion.
The case is Martin Jaranowski v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, 22-2437.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.