The Estate of R. Shane Adams et al v. Zenith Energy Terminals Holdings, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
THE ESTATE OF R. SHANE ADAMS et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-52
(KLEEH)
ZENITH ENERGY TERMINALS HOLDINGS, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 73]
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendants 	Zenith 	Energy
Terminals Holdings, LLC and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC’s Motion
for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims [ECF No. 73].
For 	the 	reasons 	discussed 	herein, 	the 	Motion 	[ECF 	No. 	73] 	is
GRANTED.
I. 	RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 	May 	10, 	2024, 	Plaintiffs 	the 	Estate 	of 	R. 	Shane 	Adams,
Jeremy 	Pope, 	G.T.P. 	and 	A.M.P. 	by 	next 	of 	friend, 	Jeremy 	Pope
(“Plaintiffs”) 	filed 	suit 	against 	several 	entities 	alleging
multiple 	claims 	relating 	to 	Mr. 	Adams’ 	death 	on 	May 	13, 	2022.
Compl., 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	Defendants 	Zenith 	Energy 	Terminals 	Holdings,
LLC, and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC filed their Answer on August
28, 2024. The parties stipulated to the dismissal of several other
Zenith entity defendants. ECF Nos. 26, 27. Thereafter, Plaintiffs
moved pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
to 	drop 	“John 	Doe 	Tugboat 	Owner” 	and 	“John 	Doe 	Tugboat 	Operators
1-10” 	as 	parties. 	ECF 	No. 	114. 	The 	Court 	granted 	the 	Rule 	21
Motion. 	ECF 	No. 	114. 	Accordingly, 	the 	only 	remaining 	Defendants
are 	Zenith 	Energy 	Terminals 	Holdings, 	LLC, 	and 	Zenith 	Energy
Logistics, LLC (“Zenith Defendants”).
On June 13, 2025, the Zenith Defendants moved to amend their
Answer 	to 	assert 	an 	additional 	affirmative 	defense 	under 	1985’s
Rails to Trails Program, W. Va. Code § 5B-1A-1, et seq. (the “Rail
Trail 	Act”). 	ECF 	No. 	55. 	The 	Court 	granted 	the 	Zenith 	Defendants
leave to amend their Answer. ECF No. 152. 1
On 	July 	21, 	2025, 	Defendants 	filed 	Defendants 	Zenith 	Energy
Terminals Holdings, LLC and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC’s Motion
for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims [ECF No. 73],
along with supporting memorandum. ECF No. 74. On August 11, 2025,
Plaintiffs 	filed 	their 	response 	in 	opposition 	to 	Defendant’s
motion 	for 	summary 	judgment. 	ECF 	No. 	87. 	Defendants 	filed 	their
reply 	briefing 	on 	August 	25, 	2025. 	ECF 	No. 	88-1. 	The 	Court 	heard
oral 	arguments 	on 	November 	3, 	2025. 	Accordingly, 	this 	Motion 	is
fully briefed and ripe for review.
1 The Amended Answer is docketed at ECF No. 153.
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
II. 	RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
On 	May 	13, 	2022, 	Shane 	R. 	Adams 	(“Adams” 	or 	“Decedent”)
visited 	the 	Edith 	Barill 	Riverfront 	Park 	in 	Star 	City, 	West
Virginia with family members including two minor children. ECF No.
86 	at 	p. 	2; 	ECF 	No. 	74 	at 	p. 	1. 	Adams 	and 	family 	were 	operating
remote controlled boats on the Monongahela River. ECF No. 86 at p.
2; ECF No. 74 at p. 7; see Jeremy Pope Dep., ECF No. 73, Ex. 4 at
pp. 	11-12 	and 	24-25. 	When 	one 	of 	the 	remoted 	controlled 	boats
stopped responding, Adams decided to swim to recover the boat. ECF
No. 	86 	at 	p. 	2; 	ECF 	No. 	74 	at 	p. 	7; 	see 	ECF 	No. 	73, 	Ex.4 	at 	pp.
26, 35. Ultimately, Adams drowned on the Monongahela River near a
marine 	fuel 	transfer 	facility 	owned 	and 	operated 	by 	the 	Zenith
Defendants. 	ECF 	No. 	86 	at 	p. 	2; 	ECF 	No. 	74 	at 	pp. 	1, 	8; 	see 	ECF
No. 	73, 	Ex. 	9. 	Plaintiffs 	Jeremy 	Pope, 	G.T.P., 	and 	A.M.P. 	were
present at the riverfront park at the time of Adams’ death. Jeremy
Pope Dep., ECF No. 86-10, at pp. 35-36.
There 	are 	three 	properties 	relevant 	to 	this 	action: 	(1) 	the
Edith Barill Riverfront Park; (2) the West Virginia Rail Authority
Property; and (3) the Zenith Energy Terminal. ECF No. 74 at p. 3;
ECF No. 73, Ex. 1. Adams entered the river from the West Virginia
Rail 	Authority 	Property 	(“Rail 	Authority 	Property”), 	which 	abuts
2 The Court only addresses the undisputed facts necessary for disposition
of the case, pursuant to 1985’s Rails to Trails Program, W. Va. Code §
5B-1A-1, et seq. (the “Rail Trail Act”).
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the 	Zenith 	Energy 	Terminal 	(“Terminal”). 	Id.3; 	ECF 	No. 	86-10 	at
pp. 	56-58. 	The 	river 	portion 	of 	the 	Terminal 	is 	comprised 	of 	two
river cells and a walkway, which leads to where the fuel transfer
equipment is located. See ECF No. 73, Exs. 1 and 2. The river cells
are affixed to the riverbed, and one end of the walkway is welded
to the southernmost river cell. Tyler Martin Dep., ECF No. 73, Ex.
3 	at 	pp. 	81-82. 	The 	other 	end 	of 	the 	walkway 	is 	permanently
connected to the Terminal’s land. Id.
On May 13, 2022, a tug and barge were moored to the Terminal
for a fuel transfer. See Id. at p. 30; ECF No. 86 at p. 2. Zenith
Defendant 	employees 	completed 	the 	fuel 	transfer 	around 	5:35 	pm.
See 	ECF 	No. 	73, 	Ex. 	3 	at 	p. 	30. 	A 	bystander 	called 	911 	to 	report
the 	drowning 	at 	approximately 	6:44 	pm 	– 	over 	one 	hour 	after 	the
fuel transfer was completed. Id. at p. 32.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary 	judgment 	is 	appropriate 	if 	“there 	is 	no 	genuine
dispute 	as 	to 	any 	material 	fact 	and 	the 	movant 	is 	entitled 	to
judgment 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	56(a). 	The 	movant
“bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court
of 	the 	basis 	for 	its 	motion, 	and 	identifying 	those 	portions 	of
‘the 	pleadings, 	depositions, 	answers 	to 	interrogatories, 	and
3 As previously discussed and ruled upon in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion
and Order Granting Motion to Amend Answer [ECF No. 55] [ECF No. 152],
the Court permitted the Zenith Defendants to amend their Answer to assert
the Rail Trail Act affirmative defense, because Plaintiffs incorrectly
pled that Adams entered the Monongahela River from Edith Barill Park.
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
admissions 	on 	file, 	together 	with 	the 	affidavits, 	if 	any,’ 	which
it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact.” 	Celotex 	Corp. 	v. 	Catrett, 	477 	U.S. 	317, 	323 	(1986). 	The
nonmoving 	party 	must 	“make 	a 	sufficient 	showing 	on 	an 	essential
element 	of 	its 	case 	with 	respect 	to 	which 	it 	has 	the 	burden 	of
proof.” 	Id. 	at 	317–18. 	Summary 	judgment 	is 	proper 	“[w]here 	the
record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the non-moving party, there [being] no ‘genuine issue for
trial.’” 	Matsushita 	Elec. 	Indus. 	Co. 	v. 	Zenith 	Radio 	Corp., 	475
U.S. 	574, 	587 	(1986). 	The 	Court 	views 	the 	evidence 	in 	the 	light
most 	favorable 	to 	the 	non-moving 	party 	and 	draws 	any 	reasonable
inferences 	in 	the 	non-moving 	party’s 	favor. See Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
56(a); see Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en
banc).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ 	remaining 	claims 	are 	Count 	I 	– 	Wrongful 	Death;
Count 	II/V4 	- 	Negligence; 	Count 	VI 	– 	Negligent 	Infliction 	of
Emotional Distress; and Count VIII – Punitive Damages. ECF No. 1.
To succeed in a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant owed a duty,
the defendant breached the duty owed, and the negligent breach was
4 	Plaintiffs’ 	Complaint 	contains 	two 	Count 	V’s. 	Count 	II 	alleges
Negligence 	against 	all 	Defendants 	and 	the 	relevant 	Count 	V 	alleges
Negligence 	against 	the 	Zenith 	Defendants. 	The 	Court 	will 	consider 	the
negligence claims together.
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
the proximate cause of the injury. Wheeling Park Comm’n v. Dattoli,
787 S.E.2d 546, 551 (W. Va. 2016). “No action for negligence will
lie without a duty broken.” Syl. Pt. 1, in part, Parsley v. General
Motors Acceptance Corp., 280 S.E.2d 703 (W. Va. 1981). Importantly,
“[t]he 	determination 	of 	whether 	a 	defendant 	. 	. 	. 	owes 	a 	duty 	to
the 	plaintiff 	is 	not 	a 	factual 	question 	for 	the 	jury; 	rather 	the
determination 	. 	. 	. 	must 	be 	rendered 	by 	the 	court 	as 	a 	matter 	of
law.” 	Syl. 	Pt. 	5, 	Eastern 	Steel 	Constructors, 	Inc. 	v. 	City 	of
Salem, 549 S.E.2d 266, 267-68 (W. Va. 2001) (citation omitted).
“To maintain an action for wrongful death, a beneficiary must
show 	two 	specific 	elements: 	that 	a 	person 	has 	died, 	and 	that 	the
death 	was 	caused 	by 	a 	wrongful 	act, 	neglect 	or 	default.”
Bradshaw v. Soulsby, 558 S.E.2d 681, 687 (W. Va. 2001). See W.Va.
Code 	§ 	55–7–5. 	The 	Supreme 	Court 	of 	Appeals 	of 	West 	Virginia 	has
interpreted W.Va. Code § 55–7–5 to mean:
Under 	the 	express 	provisions 	of 	the 	wrongful
death statute, in order to maintain an action
for wrongful death there must be the death of
a person and the death must be caused by such
wrongful act, neglect or default as would, if
death had not ensued, have entitled the party
injured 	to 	maintain 	such 	action 	to 	recover
damages for such wrongful death.
Baldwin 	v. 	Butcher, 	184 	S.E.2d 	428, 	432 	(W. 	Va. 	1971); 	Bradshaw,
558 S.E.2d at 687.
Likewise, 	“to 	prove 	negligent 	infliction 	of 	emotional
distress, 	a 	plaintiff 	is 	required 	to 	show 	(1) 	that 	the 	defendant
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
engaged 	in 	negligent 	conduct; 	(2) 	that 	the 	plaintiff 	suffered
serious emotional distress; and (3) that the defendant's negligent
conduct was a cause of the serious emotional distress.” Mowery v.
Logan 	Cnty. 	Bd. 	of 	Educ., 	2012 	WL 	895921, 	at 	*6 	(S.D.W. 	Va. 	Mar.
15, 2012). “A claim for emotional distress without an accompanying
physical injury can only be successfully maintained upon a showing
by 	the 	plaintiffs 	in 	such 	an 	action 	of 	facts 	sufficient 	to
guarantee 	that 	the 	claim 	is 	not 	spurious 	and 	upon 	a 	showing 	that
the emotional distress is undoubtedly real and serious.” Syl. Pt.
5, 	Barbina 	v. 	Curry, 	650 	S.E.2d 	140, 	143 	(W. 	Va. 	2007); 	Syl. 	Pt.
11, Marlin v. Bill Rich Construction, Inc., 482 S.E.2d 620 (W. Va.
1996). 	The 	Supreme 	Court 	of 	Appeals 	of 	West 	Virginia 	has 	stated
that 	“cases 	will 	obviously 	be 	infrequent 	in 	which 	‘mental
disturbance,’ not so severe as to cause physical harm, will clearly
be a serious wrong worthy of redress and sufficiently attested by
the circumstances of the case.” Barbina, 650 S.E.2d at 147 (quoting
Ricottilli 	v. 	Summersville 	Mem'l 	Hosp., 	425 	S.E.2d 	629, 	635 	(W.
Va. 1992)).
Defendants argue each of Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter
of law for several reasons: (1) Defendants assert Plaintiffs failed
to 	support 	the 	duty 	and 	causation 	elements 	of 	their 	claims; 	(2)
Defendants argue they are statutorily relieved of any duty to warn
under W. Va. Code § 55-7-28(a) and W. Va. Code § 5B-1A-9(a); and(3)
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
the 	negligent 	infliction 	of 	emotional 	distress 	claim 	fails 	as 	a
matter of law. ECF No. 74.
Because each of Plaintiffs’ claims’ elements require evidence
of 	negligent 	conduct, 	specifically 	a 	duty 	owed, 	and 	the 	Zenith
Defendant’s 	alleged 	defenses 	are 	applicable 	to 	multiple 	counts,
the Court will consider the duty issue collectively.
A. The 	Zenith 	Defendants 	Had 	No 	Duty 	to 	Warn 	Decedent 	Adams 	as
a Matter of Law.
The Zenith Defendants set forth multiple arguments to support
why 	it 	owed 	no 	duty 	to 	warn 	Adams 	of 	dangerous 	conditions, 	uses,
or 	activities 	occurring 	at 	its 	Terminal. 	The 	Zenith 	Defendants
argue 	(1) 	Adams’ 	decision 	to 	swim 	into 	the 	river 	to 	retrieve 	his
RC 	boat 	was 	not 	foreseeable; 	(2) 	the 	hazards 	which 	caused 	Adams’
death were open and obvious, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 55-7-28(a);
and (3) the Rail Trail Act relieves Zenith Defendants of any duty
to 	warn 	because 	the 	terminal 	abuts 	property 	owned 	by 	the 	West
Virginia Rail Authority. ECF No. 74.
1. The 	Rail 	Trail 	Act 	Relieves 	Zenith 	Defendants 	of
liability for Injuries Resulting from Negligent Conduct.
The Court finds, that even if arguendo Plaintiffs could create
a 	triable 	issue 	of 	fact 	regarding 	their 	claims, 	the 	Zenith
Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment because the
West 	Virginia 	Legislature 	immunized 	owners 	of 	land 	adjoining
property owned by the West Virginia Rail Authority from liability,
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
excepting 	deliberate, 	willful 	or 	malicious 	injury 	to 	persons 	or
property. § 5B-1A-9(e).
The 	Rail 	Trail 	Act, 	W. 	Va. 	Code 	§ 	5B-1A-9, 	provides 	in
pertinent part:
an 	owner 	or 	lessee 	who 	provides 	the 	public
with land for use as a trail under this article
or who owns land adjoining any trail developed
under 	this 	article 	owes 	no 	duty 	of 	care 	to
keep the land safe for entry or use by others
for 	recreational 	purposes, 	or 	to 	give 	any
warning 	to 	persons 	entering 	or 	going 	on 	the
trail 	or 	adjoining 	land 	of 	a 	dangerous
condition, use, structure or activity thereon.
W. 	Va. 	Code 	§ 	5B-1A-9(a) 	(emphasis 	added). 	The 	Rail 	Trail 	Act
further 	limits 	liability, 	excepting 	deliberate, 	willful 	or
malicious injury to persons or property, specifically to:
(d) 	. 	. 	. 	an 	owner 	or 	lessee 	. 	. 	.who 	owns
adjoining land to the trail under this article
is 	not, 	by 	. 	. 	. 	owning 	land 	adjoining 	the
trail:
(1) Presumed to extend any assurance that
the land is safe for any purpose;
(2) 	Incur 	any 	duty 	of 	care 	toward 	a
person who goes on that land; or
(3) 	Become 	liable 	for 	any 	injury 	to
persons 	or 	property 	caused 	by 	an 	act 	or
an 	act 	of 	omission 	of 	a 	person 	who 	goes
on that land.
§ 5B-1A-9(d).
The 	Zenith 	Defendants 	argue 	that 	W. 	Va. 	Code 	§ 	5B-1A-9
relieves them of any duty to warn about any dangerous conditions,
uses or activities occurring at the terminal, including the barge
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
and 	moors 	because 	the 	land 	comprising 	the 	terminal 	adjoins 	land
owned 	by 	the 	West 	Virginia 	Rail 	Authority. 	ECF 	No. 	74 	at 	p. 	13.
See 	Ex. 	1, 	ECF 	No. 	73-1. 	The 	Zenith 	Defendants 	contend 	that 	the
conditions 	of 	their 	property 	include 	the 	barge 	near 	which 	Adams
drowned 	because 	it 	was 	moored 	to 	two 	river 	cells 	which 	were
attached to a gangplank that is permanently affixed to the Zenith
Defendants’ 	land. 	Id. 	Zenith 	Defendants 	rely 	upon 	a 	W. 	Va. 	DOT,
Div. of Highway v. W. Pocahontas Props., Ltd. P’ship, in which the
State Supreme Court defined “real estate” as
the physical land and appurtenances affixed to
the 	land—e.g., 	structures. 	Real 	estate 	is
immobile 	and 	tangible 	... 	[and] 	includes 	the
following tangible components:
• 	land
• 	all 	things 	that 	are 	a 	natural 	part 	of
land, such as trees and minerals
• 	all things that are attached to land by
people, 	such 	as 	buildings 	and 	site
improvements
In 	addition, 	all 	permanent 	building
attachments 	(for 	example, 	plumbing,
electrical 	wiring, 	and 	heating 	systems) 	as
well 	as 	built-in 	items 	(such 	as 	cabinets 	and
elevators) are usually considered part of the
real 	estate. 	Real 	estate 	includes 	all
attachments, both above and below the ground.
777 	S.E.2d 	619, 	630 	n.11 	(W. 	Va. 	2015). 	Thus, 	Zenith 	Defendants
argue that their land includes the river cells, to which the barge
and tug were moored. ECF No. 74 at p. 14.
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the Rail Trail Act only
applies 	to 	injuries 	which 	are 	sustained 	on 	land 	and 	that 	is 	does
not 	apply 	to 	drownings 	in 	navigable 	waters. 	ECF 	No. 	87 	at 	p. 	6.5
Further, 	Plaintiffs 	contend 	that 	the 	Zenith 	Defendants 	acted
willfully, removing the immunity, and that the Zenith Defendants’
interpretation 	of 	W. 	Va. 	Code 	§ 	5B-1A-9 	would 	lead 	to 	absurd
results. Id. at pp. 6-7.
Here, the Court finds that the Rail Trail Act applies to the
Zenith Defendants’ property and accordingly, they did not owe Adams
any duty of care and are not liable for his death. First, there is
no 	genuine 	dispute 	that 	the 	terminal 	abuts 	property 	owned 	by 	the
West Virginia State Rail Authority. See ECF No. 73, Ex. 1. Though
Plaintiffs’ 	counsel 	argued 	at 	the 	motions’ 	hearing 	regarding 	the
accuracy of the map [ECF No. 73, Ex. 1], there is no actual evidence
in the record to dispute that the terminal abuts property owned by
the West Virginia Rail Trail Authority. Furthermore, public State
records confirm and corroborate the Zenith Defendants’ position on
the respective land ownership, and the Court takes judicial notice
of those public records pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.6
5 	The 	Court 	does 	not 	address 	Plaintiffs’ 	arguments 	regarding 	the
applicability 	of 	maritime 	law, 	which 	have 	already 	been 	disposed 	of 	by
prior orders.
6 	The 	West 	Virginia 	Property 	Viewer, 	maintained 	in 	part 	by 	the 	West
Virginia State Tax Department, reflects that the land owned by the Zenith
Defendants 	in 	2022 	was 	adjoined 	to 	West 	Virginia 	State 	Rail 	Authority
property. W. Va. St. Tax Dept., West Virginia Property Viewer, mapwv.gov,
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
Furthermore, 	Plaintiffs’ 	argument 	regarding 	the 	location 	or
type 	of 	injury 	at 	issue 	is 	unavailing 	and 	irrelevant 	to 	the
statute’s 	applicability 	because 	W. 	Va. 	Code 	§ 	5B-1A-9 	relieves
Zenith 	Defendants 	of 	the 	obligation 	to 	warn 	of 	dangerous
conditions, 	uses, 	structures, 	or 	activities 	on 	their 	property.
Plaintiffs 	have 	continually 	argued 	that 	Mr. 	Adams 	drowned 	as 	a
result of a “deadly hazard created by the operation of [the Zenith
Defendants’] business,” [ECF No. 86 at p. 6] and that “the wrongful
death of Mr. Adams result[ed] from his interaction with the moored
barge 	at 	Zenith 	Defendants' 	facility.” 	Id. 	at 	p. 	11. 	Thus,
Plaintiffs’ 	claims 	clearly 	refer 	to 	a 	condition 	on 	the 	Zenith
Defendants’ property. The barge under which Mr. Adams drowned was
moored 	to 	a 	fixture 	of 	the 	Zenith 	Defendants’ 	property 	and 	thus
falls within § 5B-1A-9’s protection.
Plaintiffs additionally argue that the Rail Trail Act should
not apply because Zenith Defendants acted willfully. This argument
readily 	fails 	as 	all 	of 	Plaintiffs’ 	claims 	lie 	in 	negligence 	and
there are no claims of intentional or willful acts at issue.
Accordingly, The Zenith Defendants owed no duty to warn Adams
of 	any 	dangerous 	conditions 	under 	W. 	Va. 	Code 	§ 	5B-1A-9 	because
the Terminal abuts property owned by the West Virginia State Rail
Authority. 	Because 	duty 	is 	an 	essential 	element 	of 	a 	negligence
https://mapwv.gov/parcel/?pid=31-17-0003-0001-0000 	(last 	visited 	March
20, 2026).
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
claim, Plaintiffs’ Count II/V for Negligence fails as a matter of
law. Furthermore, Count I – Wrongful Death and Count VI – Negligent
Infliction of Emotional Distress each presuppose the existence of
negligent 	conduct. 	Because 	Plaintiffs 	cannot 	succeed 	on 	the
negligence 	claim, 	these 	claims 	additionally 	fail 	as 	a 	matter 	of
law. 	As 	such, 	the 	application 	of 	the 	Rail 	Trail 	Act 	to 	the 	facts
of this case is dispositive of this action in its entirety and the
Court need not address the Zeniths Defendants’ additional summary
judgment 	arguments. 	Further, 	Plaintiffs 	are 	not 	entitled 	to
punitive damages because each substantive claim against the Zenith
Defendants fails as a matter of law.7
V. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	herein, 	Defendants 	Zenith 	Energy
Terminals Holdings, LLC and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC’s Motion
for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims [ECF No. 73]
is 	GRANTED. 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	[ECF 	No. 	1] 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITH
PREJUDICE. 	Any 	remaining 	pending 	motions, 	deadlines, 	or 	hearings
7 Count VIII for punitive damages is DISMISSED WITH PREJUICE. Plaintiffs’
claim for punitive damages fails as a matter of law because “under West
Virginia law, a separate cause of action for punitive damages does not
exist.” Slampak v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 WL 3304814, at *4
(N.D.W. Va. July 23, 2019). See Cook v. Heck's Inc., 342 S.E.2d 453, 461
n.3 (W. Va. 1986); Miller v. Carelink Health Plans, Inc., 82 F. Supp.
2d 574, 579 n.6 (W. Va. 2000) (“West Virginia law does not recognize an
independent 	cause 	of 	action 	for 	punitive 	damages.”). 	A 	“claim 	for
punitive damages also fails because punitive damages are a form of relief
rather than an independent claim.” Kerns v. Range Res.-Appalachia, LLC,
2011 WL 197908, at *7 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2011).
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
are 	TERMINATED. 	This 	action 	is 	thus 	STRICKEN 	from 	the 	Court’s
active docket, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor
of the Zenith Defendants.
It is so ORDERED.
The 	Clerk 	is 	directed 	to 	transmit 	copies 	of 	this 	Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record by the CM/ECF system.
DATED: 	March 30, 2026
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 158 Filed 03/30/26 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>