Sierra v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Background

Maria E. Sierra sued her former employer, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also called Amtrak, under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). Sierra worked as a Coach Cleaner for Amtrak’s Acela trains. During an overnight shift on July 7, 2018, she slipped while cleaning the eighth restroom of her shift and injured her knee. She sought damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, lost earnings, reduced future earning capacity, and medical expenses.

Amtrak moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The accident and training evidence

Sierra initially reported that she slipped on a wet floor. In a recorded statement four days later, she said she had been mopping quickly and scrubbing hard, stepped on the mop, and fell. In her deposition, she confirmed that account and said she had used a “Wet, wet, mop” and walked back over the wet floor. She described the event as a “freaky accident” and said she did not blame anyone.

In a declaration opposing summary judgment, Sierra added that she had been unable to obtain a purple scrubbing pad and that its absence contributed to the accident. The court found that this statement contradicted her deposition testimony, in which she said she had been given a purple pad but chose not to use it.

The undisputed evidence showed that Sierra received extensive training on cleaning procedures and safety. The training instructed cleaners to use only the amount of liquid needed, remove excess moisture, avoid standing water, use a damp rather than a very wet mop, and begin at the back of the restroom while moving backward toward the entrance. Sierra acknowledged receiving this training and being current on it when she fell.

FELA standards

FELA requires railroad employers to provide employees with a safe workplace, but it is not a workers’ compensation or insurance system. A FELA plaintiff must provide at least some evidence supporting employer negligence. FELA uses a more relaxed standard for proving negligence and causation than ordinary negligence law, but it does not impose strict liability.

The court addressed two issues: whether Amtrak had notice of the dangerous condition and whether Amtrak’s negligence played any part in causing Sierra’s injury.

Notice

The court held that the record did not show Amtrak had actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition. Actual notice means the employer knew about the danger. Constructive notice means the danger was so obvious or persistent that the employer should have discovered it.

The court found no evidence that Amtrak knew the train bathrooms were slippery or that its cleaning methods created unsafe conditions. Amtrak’s written materials and training instead directed employees not to soak surfaces, not to allow standing water, to use the minimum necessary liquid, to wring the mop frequently, and to remove excess moisture. Sierra had not reported unsafe conditions, and the record contained no evidence of similar injuries, complaints, or reports. No identified witness had seen Sierra using an excessively wet mop or walking on the wet floor when the accident occurred.

Negligence and causation

The court also held that Sierra offered no evidence that Amtrak caused her injury or that Amtrak’s negligence played any part in it. The record showed that Amtrak trained Sierra to avoid the conduct that led to her fall. Sierra testified that she was cleaning quickly and without thinking, using a very wet mop, and walking on the wet floor. The court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could find for Sierra on the undisputed record.

The court rejected Sierra’s later theory that the missing purple pad caused the accident because her declaration conflicted with her sworn deposition testimony. The court also noted that Sierra did not identify any additional training or equipment that Amtrak should have provided and that would have prevented the injury.

Expert report

Sierra relied on a report from James R. Peduto, an expert in cleaning and maintenance of commercial buildings. Peduto opined that Amtrak should have provided training meeting the optional Cleaning Industry Management Standard, supplied a microfiber mop instead of a conventional mop, and provided a floor cleaner.

The court disregarded the report. It found that Peduto lacked expertise concerning cleaning standards for trains or railroads, had not reviewed the complete record, and relied on a standard that was not mandatory. His training opinion contradicted the evidence that Amtrak provided Sierra with extensive training and safety procedures. His microfiber-mop theory was treated as abandoned because Sierra did not respond to Amtrak’s argument about the conventional mop and instead relied on the purple-pad theory. His floor-cleaner opinion also contradicted Sierra’s testimony and Amtrak’s records showing that she was provided with floor cleaner.

Disposition

Judge McMahon granted Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Docket Number 37, and ordered the case closed.