Alderman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. case brief

Alderman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.
113 F. Supp. 881 (S. Dist. W.Va. 1953).

Facts	-Plaintiff was injured while riding on D’s train when the railroad cars derailed.  -P was traveling on a free transportation pass, on which was printed that the passenger assumed the risk of all personal injury and relieved the railroad of all liability.  -P sued D for negligence in the maintenance of its tracks, later amending the complaint to charge the D with willful and wanton conduct.  -D moved for summary judgment, contending that  P could not prove that D’s conduct was willful or wanton.
Issue	Is summary judgment in favor of the defendant appropriate where the plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proof?
Holding	-Yes. Summary judgment is proper when there are clear and undisputed facts, and when the other party’s complaint or defense fails to establish a legal premise upon which relief could be granted. -Motion for summary judgment granted.
Rules	Summary judgment is appropriate when the P fails to demonstrate sufficient factual support of her claims. Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer) may be granted following the initial pleading, where a claim fails to state sufficient grounds for relief even if all of the factual allegations are presumed to be true. Motion for Summary Judgment typically granted following the discovery process.  If discovery fails to reveal any genuine issues of material fact in dispute, then [Rule 56] allows the court to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of the moving party.
Analysis	-Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state facts sufficient to demonstrate that the railroad acted willfully.  Therefore, Alderman will be unable to prove that the railroad acted willfully and wantonly. -The court held that the affidavits of D showed that P could not establish this part of his case. To prevail, P must show that D knew of the defect in the rail, knew that the defect would break if a train went over it, and was recklessly indifferent to the consequences. This type of defect was not discoverable by visual examination.  D did make a visual examination the day before the accident. P had no evidence to prove his case. -In this case, P must show that D was aware of the defect in order to prevail and P had no evidence. If there is any dispute about the material facts of a case, a summary judgment cannot be granted. - A judge must construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.