Leonard v. Board OF Supervisors OF Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College (2014)

Our plain-English summary of Leonard v. Board OF Supervisors OF Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, May 27, 2014).

Royce Leonard and his wife Beverly sued several defendants in federal court in Louisiana, alleging that Royce developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. This ruling concerned only Union Pacific Railroad. Leonard had worked as a tally man in the shipyards along the Mississippi River in Baton Rouge, employed by the City-Parish of Baton Rouge and/or the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission. He boarded railcars to inspect, count and verify cargo, and he alleged the railcars and cargo contained asbestos. The railcars were owned or controlled by Union Pacific's predecessors. The plaintiffs claimed Union Pacific failed to protect him and failed to warn him. Union Pacific moved to dismiss, arguing it had no such duty and, alternatively, that federal law preempted the claims. The court granted the motion. It found that Louisiana law only required a railroad to inspect its cars to make sure they were reasonably safe for use, and that the plaintiffs cited no case imposing a broader duty. The court did not reach preemption and treated any strict liability claim as abandoned.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana
• Decided: May 27, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 13-565-JJB-SCR
• Stage: Motion to dismiss
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted Union Pacific Railroad Company's re-urged motion to dismiss, ruling that Union Pacific owed Royce Leonard no legal duty, so the Leonards' claims against it were dismissed.

What the court held. Under Louisiana law, a railroad carrier's duty is to inspect its railcars to make sure they are reasonably safe for use, and no duty was shown to protect or warn a person boarding cars about hazardous cargo.

Issues decided: Failure to Warn.

The people and their exposure

• Royce Leonard: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Union Pacific Railroad Company (railroad)
• Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Leonard v. Board OF Supervisors OF Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College (September 17, 2014). The magistrate judge denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses and for attorney's fees from defendant Lockheed Martin, finding no factual basis shown for exposure to a Lockheed aircraft component and no good-faith effort to confer.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

Leonard v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE AND MECHANICAL COLLEG…

ROYCE LEONARD, etal.

v.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE AND

MECHANICAL COLLEGE, etal.

Civil Action No. 13-565-JJB-SCR.

May 27, 2014.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

RULING ON UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S RE-URGED MOTION

TO DISMISS

JAMES J. BRADY, District Court.

This matter is before the Court on a Re-Urged Motion (doc. 76) to Dismiss brought by Defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific"). Plaintiffs, Royce and Beverly Leonard, have filed an opposition (doc. 81), to which Union Pacific has filed a reply (doc. 95). Oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons stated herein, Union Pacific's Re-Urged Motion (doc. 76) to Dismiss is GRANTED.

I. Background

Royce and Beverly Leonard bring this suit against multiple defendants alleging that Royce Leonard ("Leonard") was injured as a result of his exposure to products containing asbestos. The present motion concerns Leonard's exposure to products containing asbestos during his time working as a tally man in the shipyards along the Mississippi River banks in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. During this time, Leonard was employed by the City-Parish of Baton Rouge and/or the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission. (First Amending Petition, at ¶ 18). As a tally man, Leonard boarded railcars to inspect, count, tally, and verify cargo that was placed, or to be placed, in the railcars. (First Amending Petition, at ¶ 17). Leonard alleges that these railcars contained products and cargo containing asbestos. (First Amending Petition, at ¶ 18). The railcars Leonard boarded were owned or under the custody or control of the Texas and Pacific Railway and/or the Missouri Pacific Railroad, which are now Union Pacific. (First Amending Petition, at ¶ 19).

Plaintiffs now seek to impose liability upon Union Pacific alleging that it "failed to act reasonable to protect the public, including Petitioner, from coming into contact with asbestos on its trains and their cars and components." (First Amending Petition, at ¶ 19). Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to impose liability upon Union Pacific for failure to warn Leonard of the dangers associated with working with or around products containing asbestos. (First Amending Petition, at ¶ 43). Plaintiffs conclude that Union Pacific's failures resulted in Leonard's exposure to asbestos, which led to his development of mesothelioma. (First Amending Petition, at ¶ 42).

II. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing the complaint, a court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. C.C. Port. Ltd. v. Davis-Penn Mortg. Co., 61 F.3d 288, 289 (5th Cir. 1995). Facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See Bass v. Stryker Corp., 669 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir. 2012) In order to survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A court need not determine at this preliminary stage whether the plaintiff's claims will ultimately succeed on the merits. Id. at 556. Instead, a court must identify the factual allegations entitled to the presumption of truth and determine whether they state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

Leonard v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURE AND MECHANICAL COLLEG…

Union Pacific asserts that Plaintiffs' claims against it fail as a matter of law. Union Pacific argues that as an interstate carrier, it owed no duty to protect Leonard from hazardous cargo. Instead, Union Pacific argues that it was only charged with inspecting its railcars to ensure that the railcars could safely transport its contents from point to point. Union Pacific contends in the alternative, that Plaintiffs' state common law tort claims are preempted by federal law. Plaintiffs argue in response that Union Pacific owed Leonard and his employer a duty to warn them of its railcars' hazardous contents. Plaintiffs further argue that federal law does not preempt his state common law tort claims.

After reviewing the parties' arguments and the case law submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that Union Pacific did not owe Leonard a legal duty. Union Pacific has adduced an abundance of both binding and persuasive precedent to support its contention that it only had a duty to inspect the exterior of its railcars to ensure that they were reasonably safe for use. See Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 76-1, at 5-10 (citing several supportive cases therein). Indeed, the general rule in Louisiana has long been that,

It is the duty of the owners of cars to examine them carefully with the view of seeing that they are safe in all their parts. It is also the duty of a railroad company which receives cars from another company to inspect the same with the view of ascertaining their condition. . . . It seems to be a rule very generally followed by the reported cases that. . . the carrier will be liable for any personal injuries resulting to any one whose connection with the shipment causes him to be on the car, which injuries are caused by the defective

condition of the car, where such a condition could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection.

Jacob v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 63 So.306, 308-309 (La. 1913); see also Davenport et al v. Loket Sanders Paper Co., 287 So.2d 601 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1973) (discussing subsequent cases applying the general rule announced in Jacobs). Leonard has not produced, nor has the Court been able to find, any case law which imposes a legal duty upon a railroad carrier under the facts herein presented. Therefore, for this reason and reasons further expounded upon in Union Pacific's brief, the Court finds that Union Pacific did not owe Leonard a legal duty and thus, the tort claims asserted against Union Pacific fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims against Union Pacific are dismissed.[1]

Given that it has found that Union Pacific did not owe Leonard a legal duty, the Court will not address the parties' arguments concerning federal preemption.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, Union Pacific's Re-Urged Motion (doc. 76) to Dismiss is GRANTED. All claims asserted against Union Pacific are DISMISSED.

[1] Seemingly out of an abundance of caution, Union Pacific addressed and contested any claims that Plaintiffs may have asserted under a strict liability theory. Plaintiffs did not argue the merits of any strict liability claim in their opposition. Therefore, in the event that one was asserted, Plaintiff's have abandoned any claim against Union Pacific under a strict liability theory.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Louisiana asbestos laws
• Louisiana asbestos exposure sites