SCRANTON – A New York railroad company says that a mechanic’s lawsuit filed after his right dominant hand and arm were pulled into an unguarded point on a piece of railroad equipment, should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Sean Jordan of Carbondale first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 13 versus Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (doing business as “Canadian Pacific Railway”) of Clifton Park, N.Y. and Nordco, Inc. of Oak Creek, Wis.
“On April 22, 2020, plaintiff, Sean Jordan, a 45-year old railroad mechanic, suffered a massive crush injury when his right dominant hand and arm were pulled into an unguarded crush point on a piece of railroad equipment called a “Bulk Automated Anchor Machine” (BAAM),” the suit stated.
“At the time of his injury and at all relevant times, Jordan, was employed as a mechanic by defendant, D&H. Jordan, was working in the course and scope of his employment with D&H, on D&H tracks located south of Plattsburgh, N.Y. When laying railroad track, a BAAM applies anchors directly to the rail base next to the railroad tie in order to secure the track.”
On April 22, the BAAM that injured Mr. Jordan was allegedly not effectively placing anchors. Jordan’s supervisor/foreman, Tom Rode, who is a D&H employee, asked Jordan to help investigate why the BAAM was not working.
“Jordan was directed to walk next to the BAAM while it was operating to look at the anchors dropping and try to diagnose the problem. Rode observed the process from on top of a platform on the BAAM next to the entrance to the cab. Seated in the cab was the BAAM’s operator Chris Miller, also a D&H employee,” the suit stated.
“In order to perform his task, Mr. Jordan was required to walk on uneven ballast very close to the BAAM while the BAAM moved intermittently on the tracks. The ballast in the area where Mr. Jordan was assigned to work was uneven due to recent track-laying activity at the site; ballast had been piled along the side of the track by a ‘cribber’, which temporarily exposes ties so anchors can be placed.”
The plaintiff added that a combination of factors – an unguarded crush point, uneven terrain, poor operator visibility, and sudden machine movements – created “a highly dangerous situation for any nearby worker and in particular someone trying to observe the placement of the anchors.”
“As Jordan fell, his leg contacted the narrow metal platform in front of the work head, further upsetting his balance and causing him to continue falling toward the BAAM’s unguarded crush point created by the movement of the work head and its proximity to the fixed rigid frame. Jordan’s glove was caught in the work head which was moving up, pulling his arm inside,” per the suit.
“The operator of the machine could not see that Jordan fell and did not disengage the machine and lower the work head until the foreman, Rode, yelled to him in the cab after Jordan’s arm was crushed. This resulted in a severe injury to Mr. Jordan’s hand and arm while stuck inside the work head as it operated.”
UPDATE
D&H filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on Nov. 6.
“This Court lacks general personal jurisdiction over D&H, because D&H is neither incorporated, nor does it have its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. This Court also lacks specific personal jurisdiction over D&H because there is no connection between Pennsylvania and the alleged accident, which occurred in New York,” counsel for D&H said in its motion.
According to the company, Jordan’s reliance on 42 Pa. C.S. Section 5301(a)(2) to establish general personal jurisdiction is misplaced because that statute is at odds with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and is unconstitutional pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
“Further, D&H did not consent to general jurisdiction under 42 Pa. C.S. Section 5301 by registering to do business in Pennsylvania as required by 15 Pa. C.S. Section 411(a) because consent to jurisdiction must be given voluntarily. 5. Finally, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prevents Pennsylvania from forcing foreign corporations, such as D&H, to consent to jurisdiction. D&H respectfully requests oral argument.”
For multiple counts of negligence, negligence per se, strict liability (both design defect and lack of warning) and breach of warranties, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limit, together with delay damages, interest, costs of suit and such other relief that the Court deems just, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Amber M. Racine and Charles P. Hehmeyer of Raynes Lawn Hehmeyer, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by J. Lawson Johnston and Scott D. Clements of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote in Pittsburgh, and Robert J. Cosgrove of Wade Clark Mulcahy, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-01879
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com