Joe Whatley, Jr. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
- Summarized by Jonathan Batiste , Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- 7 months 5 days ago
- Case Type:
- Business
- Case Status:
- Reversed and Remanded
- Citation:
- No. 24-1477 (8th Circuit, Jul 03,2025) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s decisions against applying a joint stipulation between Plaintiff and Defendant and against applying Defendant’s judgment reduction credit, derived from Debtor’s bankruptcy plan. The district court abused its discretion by setting aside part of the stipulation. Defendant is entitled to a full judgment reduction credit despite any damages determined under the Carmack Amendment.
- Procedural context:
- Plaintiff sued Defendant in district court following Debtor's bankruptcy, asserting Carmack Amendment claims that Debtor assigned to Plaintiff. When the district court applied only part of the joint stipulation between Plaintiff and Defendant, both parties appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- Facts:
- In 2013, the negligent operation of a Canadian Pacific train carrying crude oil caused a series of explosions, killing forty-seven people and destroying the center of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada. The Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway (“Debtor”), which was responsible for operating the Canadian Pacific train at the time of the disaster, then filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine. Debtor’s bankruptcy plan addressed the rights of parties settling with Debtor and the rights of Non-Settling Defendants, such as Canadian Pacific (“Defendant”), who benefit from a judgment reduction provision in the plan.
World Fuel Entities, which settled with Debtor, transferred its claims against Debtor to Debtor. Debtor then assigned the claims, which arose under the Carmack Amendment, to the trustee of a trust that Debtor’s bankruptcy plan established for wrongful death claimants. In 2016, the trustee (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant, asserting the Carmack Amendment claims. The parties submitted a joint stipulation to the district court, which the court adopted in its entirety. However, the district court refused to address part of the stipulation that required it to decide whether the judgment reduction provision was applicable. Following that, both Plaintiff and Defendant appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals determined that the district court abused its discretion by setting aside part of the joint stipulation. In place of the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals determined that the judgment reduction provision should be applied. Because Debtor was solely liable for the disaster, the judgment reduction provision extinguishes Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant, as no party can fairly be made to take on any portion of Debtor’s liability.
- Judge(s):
- Gruender, Benton, and Shepherd
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
