Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-824 - JENKINSON et al v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-824 - JENKINSON et al v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
April 11, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 65), and the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply ( Filing No. 82). The Court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding whether federal funds were used to install crossbuck signs at the Crossing and whether conducting the air brake test at the Crossing, rather than at Rydman & Fox bean facility, amounts to the cause of Plaintiffs' injuries. Accordingly, the issues remaining for trial are: 1) whether federal funds were used to install crossbuck signs at the Crossing; 2) whether Norfolk acted negligently when failing to train its crew members on Rule 123 of Norfolk's operating rules; and 3) whether Norfolk acted negligently in conducting the brake test at the Crossing. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/11/2017. (JLS)
April 17, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (Filing No. 95) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Norfolk's Motions in Limine (Filing No. 98) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. An order in limine is not a final, appealable order. During the course of the trial, if the parties believe that evidence being offered is inadmissible or irrelevant, counsel may approach the bench and request a hearing outside the presence of the jury. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/17/2017. (JLS) Modified on 4/17/2017 (JLS).