Willie Wallace Thomas et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Summary

The court partially grants and partially denies Union Pacific Railroad Company’s motion for partial summary judgment in a dispute arising from the placement of railroad ballast and equipment on property leased by the plaintiffs. The court holds that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue a trespass claim and that a temporary construction easement does not clearly establish a compromise of that claim. The court denies summary judgment concerning causation of the plaintiff’s thoracic spine injuries but grants it as to the claimed cervical and lumbar spine injuries, and it addresses the plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Holdings

1. A possessor or lessee of immovable property may bring a trespass claim, and Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of Thomas's possessory interest through the alleged lease to survive summary judgment.
2. Summary judgment was improper on the argument that the temporary construction easement compromised Plaintiffs' trespass claim because the agreement did not clearly demonstrate an intent to settle that claim and a genuine issue of material fact remained.
3. Plaintiffs presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the May 27, 2021 fall caused Thomas's thoracic-spine injuries, precluding summary judgment on those injuries.
4. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Thomas's cervical- and lumbar-spine injury claims because Plaintiffs lacked competent evidence creating a genuine issue of fact on medical causation.
5. Plaintiffs failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on their intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the alleged conduct was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous and Plaintiffs did not show the requisite intent or substantial certainty of severe emotional distress.
6. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' loss-of-business-income claim because Plaintiffs failed to dispute evidence that Crown Castle had no agreement, easement, right-of-way, or payment record involving Thomas.
7. The loss-of-consortium claim survived summary judgment because it is derivative of a viable underlying claim and Thomas's thoracic-injury claim remained pending.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs had standing to assert a trespass claim based on their possessory interest in the property.
2. Whether a temporary construction easement and related agreement clearly compromised or settled Plaintiffs' trespass claim.
3. Whether Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute regarding medical causation for Thomas's thoracic, cervical, and lumbar spine injuries.
4. Whether Plaintiffs presented evidence supporting the extreme and outrageous conduct, severe distress, and intent or substantial-certainty elements of an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
5. Whether Plaintiffs could pursue loss-of-business-income damages and whether Jennifer Thomas's loss-of-consortium claim survived with Thomas's viable thoracic-injury claim.

Disposition

other