Norfolk Southern (NS) rested its case on April 11. Both GATX and OxyVinyls have now moved for judgment as a matter of law.

GATX’s Motion

GATX asserts that NS is trying to pin liability on GATX for a single negligence theory: Hurricane Harvey supposedly damaged the inner workings of a GATX rail car, causing the derailment of Train 32N in East Palestine. GATX says the evidence is otherwise. Specifically, it argues:

1. NS can’t prove GATX was negligent. NS has presented no solid evidence that GATX failed to inspect the car or missed something that would have met the industry’s standard of care.
2. NS’s “latent defect” and causal theory are speculative at best. GATX says the real cause of class plaintiffs’ injuries was NS’s own vent and burn decision, which broke any other chain in causation.
3. NS hasn’t shown it paid more than its fair share under Ohio law, so no contribution is warranted.

OxyVinyls’ Motion

NS asserts two claims against OxyVinyls: (1) negligence and (2) contribution under Ohio’s joint & several liability doctrine. The gist? NS says it relied on a flawed safety data sheet (SDS) from OxyVinyls when it decided with others to vent and burn. OxyVinyls retorts:

1. No duty, no breach, no injury. NS has failed to show OxyVinyls owed any duty, that it breached that duty, or that the breach proximately caused any injuries. NS blames the SDS, which, OxyVinyls argues, is not sufficient. No trial or record evidence shows OxyVinyls breached an SDS-related duty to class plaintiffs, much less that the SDS caused harm. And even if it was flawed, OxyVinyls argues, NS made the call to vent and burn. That was its decision—thus its liability.
2. The contribution claim is premature. NS hasn’t yet paid out the full settlement to class plaintiffs, and appeal of the settlement is still pending. Under Ohio Law, OxyVinyls says NS can’t pursue contribution until that’s all squared away. (OxyVinyls adds its view that NS has proceeded at trial solely on its contribution theory.)