OPINION AND ORDER Defendant New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (“Defendant” or “NJT”) moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff Scott Lupia (“Plaintiff” or “Lupia”). Dkt. No. 36. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND The following undisputed facts are drawn from the parties’ statements of material facts submitted pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 and the evidence submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment and are construed in favor of the non-moving party. Dkt. No. 37 at 5; Dkt. No. 39-1. At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, Lupia was employed as a locomotive engineer in the Hoboken Division of NJT. Dkt. No. 39-1 1; see also Dkt. No. 12 3. On July 21, 2021, Lupia entered the cab of his assigned locomotive (“Engine 4627″) of his train (“Train 6659″) at Penn Station and discovered that the cab air conditioning (“A/C”) unit was not working. Dkt. No. 39-1 1. Lupia notified the Senior Train Master Sue Walker (“Walker”), who measured the cab’s temperature at 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Id. NJT sent mechanical personnel to his cab, but they were unable to repair the A/C unit, which according to the railroad’s service records, had first been reported inoperable six weeks earlier. Id. Train 6659 had been commissioned on or around 2001. Dkt. No. 37 at 5 7; Dkt. No. 38 5. After observing the conditions in the cab, Walker called her supervisor, Chief Train Master Malik Little (“Little”). Dkt. No. 39-1 2. Walker told Little that the A/C unit was broken and could not be repaired. She also told Little that the temperature in the cab was 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Id. Little nonetheless ordered Lupia to operate the train as scheduled. Id. At the time that Little made this order, he knew of prior instances in which NJT engineers required medical assistance after operating a train when the ambient cab temperature was above 100 degrees. Id. Little also believed that NJT prohibited locomotive engineers from refusing to operate a locomotive without A/C. Id. According to Little, if the engineer refused to operate the locomotive with inoperable A/C, he or she could be charged with insubordination and fired. Id. Approximately forty minutes after departing from Penn Station, Lupia collapsed from heat exhaustion. Id. 3. He was found unresponsive on the floor of the cab. Id. Video from the cab shows Lupia slumping to his left, falling out of his chair, and hitting his head and neck on hard metal surfaces. Id. He was diagnosed with head and neck injuries which required extensive medical treatment and resulted in permanent career-ending disabilities. Id.; Dkt. No. 37 at 5 2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 27, 2021. Dkt. No. 1. His complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. §51 et seq. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action under FELA. The first cause of action alleges that Defendant was negligent in one or more of the following ways: (1) failing to inspect the locomotive cab A/C unit to confirm it was operating properly; (2) failing to maintain the A/C unit to ensure it was operating properly; (3) failing to repair the A/C unit to ensure it operated properly; (4) failing to determine that the locomotive was not safe to operate given that the A/C unit was not functioning; (5) failing to provide an alternate locomotive with a properly operating A/C unit; and (6) failing to cancel the train given that the locomotive cab did not have a properly operating A/C unit. Dkt. No. 1 20.1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to use reasonable care to provide Plaintiff with a safe place in which to work. Id. 22. Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleges that Defendant violated FELA by failing to provide Plaintiff with a locomotive with all its parts and appurtenances safe to operate as intended in violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”), 49 U.S.C. §20701 et seq., and that as a result of such violation, Plaintiff was injured. Id.
