253 motionforsummaryjudgement kcsr combined

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

EASTERN DIVISION KMART CORPORATION PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-103-GHD-DAS THE KROGER CO., E&A SOUTHEAST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; FULTON IMPROVEMENTS LLC; THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CITY OF CORINTH; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE; AND ABC CORPORATION DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW Defendant The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (“KCSR”), by

and through counsel, and moves this Court pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P 56 for summary judgment on

all of Plaintiff’s claims against it and would show unto the Court the following:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kmart Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “Kmart”) brought this action on May 2, 2011,

alleging that negligent acts and/or omissions by Defendants proximately caused the flooding

damages Plaintiff sustained at its Kmart Store #4883 in Corinth, Mississippi, on May 2, 2010.

With regard to KCSR, Kmart alleges that KCSR negligently allowed excessive debris to collect

under its railroad bridge over Elam Creek, and that, blockage resulting from such alleged debris

caused the level of water in the Kmart store, located some 2100 feet upstream, to be higher than

it would have been otherwise.

Plaintiff bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, duty, breach of

duty, proximate cause and damages. McKee v. Bowers Window & Door Co., Inc., 64 So. 3d 926,

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 253 Filed: 10/07/13 1 of 9 PageID #: 2250

2

939-40 (Miss. 2011). The undisputed material facts show that Plaintiff cannot carry this burden

on breach of duty or proximate causation; and KCS is entitled to summary judgment as a matter

of law.

GROUNDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW THAT KCSR BREACHED ANY DUTY TO REASONABLY MAINTAIN THE AREA BENEATH ITS ELAM CREEK BRIDGE FREE OF EXCESSIVE DEBRIS.

1. Plaintiff, whose Kmart Store #4883 is located upstream of KCSR’s bridge over

Elam Creek, has the burden to establish that acts and/or omissions by KCSR constituted

negligence. See Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Watkins, 671 So. 2d 59, 61 (Miss. 1996) (upper riparian

landowner seeking damages for obstruction of water flow by lower riparian landowner has

burden to establish the requisite elements of any negligence claim).

2. Plaintiff offers, and can offer, no admissible evidence that KCSR failed to

adequately inspect and maintain its bridge with regard to debris under the bridge, or otherwise

failed, in any material way, to maintain its bridge. The only evidence in the record is that KCSR

did inspect and maintain the bridge in this action in a reasonable manner in accordance with all

of its internal policies and with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations and industry

standards.

II. PLAINTIFF OFFERS NO EVIDENCE OF EXCESSIVE DEBRIS UNDER KCSR’S BRIDGE AT THE TIME OF THE MAY 2, 2010 FLOOD.

3. It is undisputed in this litigation that Plaintiff has no evidence that there was any

amount of debris beneath KCSR’s railroad bridge at the time of the May 2, 2010 flood event.


3

4. Thus, for this reason also, Plaintiff has failed to make a showing on KCSR’s

alleged breach of its duty to maintain its railroad underpass free of excessive debris sufficient to

send this flood case to a jury. See Braswell v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 250 F.3d 738 (5th Cir.

2001) (plaintiff’s lack of eyewitness testimony and reliance only on post-flood photographs

showing debris near railroad, entitled defendant to judgment in its favor as a matter of law).

5. The only evidence Plaintiff relies upon to establish the presence of excessive

debris as of May 2, 2010 is the testimony of Kmart’s retained expert John R. Krewson. As set

forth fully in Defendant KCSR’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson [Doc 240]

and Memorandum in Support [Doc 241], Krewson’s testimony that excessive debris beneath

KCSR’s bridge contributed to flooding at the Kmart store is inadmissible because Krewson has

no reliable basis for assuming the presence of any excessive debris under KCSR’s bridge, much

less any reliable basis for his assumption of a twenty-five percent (25%) blockage.

6. Krewson’s testimony is speculative, and therefore, inadmissible because he relies

only upon the existence of excessive debris beneath KCSR’s bridge after the flood event, which

was just as likely debris deposited as a result of the flood rather than an indication of conditions

at the time of the flood. This post-flood evidence is not sufficient to create an issue of material

fact regarding the existence of debris beneath KCSR’s bridge at the time of the flood. See

Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264, 269 (5th Cir. 2002).

7. Because of this critical lack of evidence on the existence of debris beneath

KCSR’s bridge at the time of the flood – much less evidence of a twenty-five percent (25%)

blockage caused by excessive debris – summary judgment should be granted. Boudreaux v.

Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005).


4

8. Under Mississippi law, only when a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of a

defendant’s duty and breach thereof is it possible to even proceed to whether such breach of duty

proximately caused the plaintiff’s damages. May v. V.F.W. Post No. 2539, 577 So. 2d 372, 375

(Miss. 1991). Because Plaintiff has failed to make any showing that Defendant KCSR breached

any duty to Plaintiff, KCSR is entitled to summary judgment on this basis alone.

III. EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT KCSR BREACHED ITS DUTY TO MAINTAIN ITS RAILROAD UNDERPASS FREE OF EXCESSIVE DEBRIS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO ALLEGED ACT OR OMISSION BY KCSR WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES.

9. In order to prevail on the causation prong of its negligence claim against KCSR,

Plaintiff must establish not only that its injury would not have occurred but for the existence of

alleged excessive debris beneath KCSR’s bridge at the time of the flood, but also that Plaintiff’s

damages were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of KCSR’s negligent failure to maintain its

railroad underpass free of excessive debris. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 839 F.Supp. 2d 849

(S.D. Miss. 2012).

10. Plaintiff’s only witness, its expert Krewson, can offer no opinion that any act or

omission by KCSR contributed to Plaintiff’s damages in this case because Krewson never

modeled the KCSR bridge or debris beneath the bridge. Krewson himself has admitted that his

“models do not tell anything about backup [of flood waters] at Kmart with regard to blockage

that [he] attribute[s] to KCS.”

11.Since Kmart has acknowledged it relies solely on Krewson to establish the causal link

between alleged debris beneath KCSR’s bridge at the time of the flood and Plaintiff’s flood

damages, and because Krewson has admitted his models tell one nothing about whether alleged


5

debris caused flooding at the Kmart store, Plaintiff is without any admissible causation testimony

to establish the proximate cause element of its negligence claim against KCSR.

12. Based on the undisputed testimony of hydrologist Blake Mendrop, who did model

the KCSR bridge and the assumed 25% blockage beneath it, even assuming arguendo a twenty-

five percent (25%) blockage caused by debris beneath KCSR’s bridge at the time of the flood,

such blockage would have had no impact on the water level at the Kmart store.

13. Plaintiff has no evidence to rebut Mendrop’s testimony, so it is undisputed in the

record that any alleged blockage at the KCSR bridge was not a substantial factor in bringing

about flooding at the Kmart store. See New Albany v. Barkley, 510 So. 2d 805 (Miss. 1987).

14. Because the undisputed evidence in this case demonstrates that even assuming

arguendo a 25% blockage at the KCSR bridge, such blockage would have made no impact on

flooding at Kmart Store #4883, Plaintiff fails to make a sufficient showing of but-for causation

that can survive summary judgment.

15. Further, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff can carry its burden to establish but

for causation in this case, which it cannot, Plaintiff’s negligence claim against KCSR fails because it cannot make a showing of legal cause sufficient to survive summary judgment. 16. It is undisputed that the rainfall amount in Corinth, Mississippi, on May 2, 2010, was

extraordinary and exceeded the 100-year flood event, which no one – including Kmart and

KCSR – could reasonably foresee. See City of Pascagoula v. Rayburn, 320 So. 2d 378 (Miss.

1975).

17. Thus, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff could establish but-for causation in

this case, it cannot make a sufficient showing of legal cause and KCSR has no liability for

Plaintiff’s damages which could not be guarded against by KCSR’s exercise of reasonable care.


6

18. KCSR adopts and incorporates herein by reference the arguments and authorities set

forth in its Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, being filed contemporaneously herewith.

19. On the basis of the grounds asserted herein, Plaintiff fails to make a prima facie

showing sufficient to establish that KCSR breached any duty to Plaintiff or, even assuming

arguendo a breach, that such breach proximately caused or contributed to damages sustained by

Plaintiff. Thus, the Court should grant summary judgment in KCSR’s favor on Plaintiff’s

negligence claim against it.

20. In support of its motion, KCSR submits the following:

a. Exhibit “A” Complaint

b. Exhibit “B” Excerpts from Deposition of KCSR, August 28, 2013

c. Exhibit “C” Affidavit of Blake Mendrop

d. Exhibit “D” Excerpts from Deposition of David Huwe, August 26, 2013

e. Exhibit “E” NOAA Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena

f. Exhibit “F” Legend and Photographs of Flooding in Corinth, Mississippi, May 2, 2010

g. Exhibit “G” Excerpts from Deposition of Kmart Corporation, July 19, 2013

h. Exhibit “H” Excerpts from Deposition of John R. Krewson, May 22, 2013

i. Exhibit “I” May 2, 2010 Armato Email

j. Exhibit “J” May 3, 2010 Armato Email

k. Exhibit “K” KCSR Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories


7

l. Exhibit “L” KCSR Bridge Inspection Procedures

m. Exhibit “M” KCSR Maintenance of Way (MOW) and Signal Department Rules

n. Exhibit “N” Affidavit of Micheal Schmidt, KCSR 30(b)(6) Representative

o. Exhibit “O” KCSR MOW-102 Rules

p. Exhibit “P” KCSR Bridge Inspection Reports

q. Exhibit “Q” April 26, 2013 Letter from Plaintiff’s Counsel

r. Exhibit “R” Plaintiff’s Responses to KCSR’s Interrogatories

s. Exhibit “S” Expert Report of John R. Krewson

t. Exhibit “T” Excerpts from Deposition of Blake Mendrop, September 5, 2013

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant The Kansas City Southern

Railway Company respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment

as to all claims by Plaintiff Kmart Corporation against it.

THIS the 7th day of October, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

BY:___/ s/ Linda F. Cooper__________________ CHARLES E. ROSS (MSB #5683) W. McDONALD NICHOLS (MSB #3847) LINDA F. COOPER (MSB #102901)

Attorneys for Defendant KCSR


8

OF COUNSEL WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A. 600 Heritage Building 401 East Capitol Street Post Office Box 651 Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0651 Telephone: (601) 968-5500 Facsimile: (601) 968-5593


9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Linda F. Cooper, one of the attorneys for Defendant, The Kansas City Southern

Railway Company, do hereby certify a copy of the above and foregoing has been served on all

known counsel of record with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will

automatically send email notification to all known counsel of record.

This the 7th day of October, 2013.

/s/Linda F. Cooper

LINDA F. COOPER


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 253-1 Filed: 10/07/13 1 of 28 PageID #: 2259

253 motionforsummaryjudgement kcsr combined

Documents

kcsrs bridge

kmart store

flooding damages plaintiff

kcsrs railroad bridge

evidence of excessive

summary judgment

alleged debris

breach of duty