United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
JACK L. GIVENS, PLAINTIFF
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT
For Jack L Givens, Plaintiff: Drew C. Baebler, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bauer & Baebler, P.C., St. Louis, MO.
For Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant: Kristopher Bruce Knox, Scott H. Tucker, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Little Rock, AR.
OPINION AND ORDER
Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Jack L. Givens brings this action against defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (" Union Pacific" ) pursuant to the Federal Employer's Liability Act (" FELA" ), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. Before the Court is Union Pacific's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6). Mr. Givens has not responded, and the time for filing a response has passed. For the following reasons, Union Pacific's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Mr. Givens alleges that he was injured on October 3, 2010, when the train he was operating as a conductor for Union Pacific was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle at a railroad crossing at or near Mount Pleasant, Texas (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ ¶ 1,
6). Mr. Givens alleges that his injuries were the result of the following acts of negligence of Union Pacific:
a. It failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work;
b. It required Plaintiff to ride in the front of the locomotive where he was most exposed to danger in the event of a collision;
c. It failed to provide Plaintiff with a safe locomotive which would protect Plaintiff in the event of a collision;
d. It failed to provide adequate cushioning devices within its locomotive;
e. It failed to provide air bags, seat belts, harnesses or other means of restraint for occupants within its locomotive in case of collision;
f. It failed to install, maintain, and operate safety gates and/ or warning lights at its crossing, though such gates and/ or warning lights were practical and necessary in view of the conditions existing at such crossing;
g. It failed to cause automatic flash signals to be placed at said crossing to warn vehicular traffic of any trains that may be proceeding down the tracks though such automatic flash signals were practical and necessary in view of the conditions existing at such crossing;
h. It failed to adequately illuminate its property and right of way to advise vehicular traffic of the safe and proper thoroughfare to follow to avoid trains that may be proceeding down the tracks though such illumination was practical and necessary in ...