Claar

Claar v. Burlington Northern Railroad

Good Law
29 F.3d 499·1994 WL 362815
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 14, 1994Nos. 92-35337, 92-35539California3,185 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Canby, J.

Plaintiffs Claar, Mar, Young, Doll, Eggar, and Ellison appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defense in their action against their former employer, Burlington Northern Railroad, brought under the Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. The district court held inadmissible the expert testimony that plaintiffs offered in support of their claims, and granted summary judgment because, without that testimony, plaintiffs failed to show any causal connection between their workplace chemical exposure and their injuries. We affirm.

I

Plaintiffs are members of a group of twenty-seven people who brought suit against Burlington Northern, alleging that they suffer from a variety of ailments stemming from their exposure to a variety of chemicals while working at Burlington Northern’s Livingston, Montana, shop. Out of concern that plaintiffs might not be able to demonstrate a causal connection between their workplace chemical exposure and their injuries, the district court issued a ease management order consolidating the twenty-seven cases for pretrial purposes. The order required plaintiffs to submit affidavits describing their exposure to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.