Defendant Union Pacific’s Statute of Limitations Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

4 After discovery, Union Pacific moved for summary judgment on grounds that the three-year limitations period had run on the claim and that Christiansen had not presented any evidence that Union Pacific had been negligent.

Christiansen responded with the affidavit of an expert claiming that Union Pacific was aware of the dangers of asbestos in the mid-1930s when the American Association of Railroads issued a report. The expert also alleged that the general working conditions at a Union Pacific facility would have exposed a mechanic like Christiansen to hazardous doses of asbestos.

The trial court granted Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment with respect to the statute of limitations, ruling that the limitations period had run on his claim because he "knew or reasonably should have known of both his injury and its cause" in the mid-1990s.

The trial court also denied Union Pacific's motion with respect to the sufficiency of Christiansen's evidence, concluding that Christiansen had "set forth sufficient facts to create a duty and show a breach of that duty."

5 Christiansen filed an unopposed Rule 54(b) Motion to Enter Final Judgment as to Union Pacific Railroad Company and to Certify as Ready for Appeal. The trial court granted the motion and entered final judgment. Christiansen appealed, and Union Pacific cross-appealed.