JENKINSON et al v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Plaintiff: JOE JENKINSON and RUTH ANN JENKINSON
Defendant: NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Case Number: 1:2015cv00824
Filed: May 26, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Denise K. LaRue
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 115 ENTRY ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE - For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (Filing No. 95 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Norfolk's Motions in Limine (Filing No. 98 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. An or der in limine is not a final, appealable order. During the course of the trial, if the parties believe that evidence being offered is inadmissible or irrelevant, counsel may approach the bench and request a hearing outside the presence of the jury. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/17/2017. (JLS) Modified on 4/17/2017 (JLS).
April 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 104 ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 65 ), and the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply ( Filing No. 82 ). The Court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding whether federal funds were used to install crossbuck signs at the Crossing and whether conducting t he air brake test at the Crossing, rather than at Rydman & Fox bean facility, amounts to the cause of Plaintiffs' injuries. Accordingly, the issues remaining for trial are: 1) whether federal funds were used to install crossbuck signs at th e Crossing; 2) whether Norfolk acted negligently when failing to train its crew members on Rule 123 of Norfolk's operating rules; and 3) whether Norfolk acted negligently in conducting the brake test at the Crossing. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/11/2017. (JLS)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: JENKINSON et al v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: JOE JENKINSON
Represented By: Daniel L. Allen
Represented By: Jose M. Bautista
Represented By: Steven L. Groves
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: RUTH ANN JENKINSON
Represented By: Daniel L. Allen
Represented By: Jose M. Bautista
Represented By: Steven L. Groves
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Represented By: John C. Duffey
Represented By: Mark Robert Molter
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?