Bouck v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co
5:20-cv-01298
W.D. La.Nov 10, 2021Background
- Dennis Bouck worked for Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR) from ~1964–2007 and alleges prolonged asbestos exposure while working on locomotives and locomotive parts; diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2020.
- Bouck sued KCSR under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for failing to provide a reasonably safe workplace (no warnings, testing, PPE, or training) and also sued several manufacturers of asbestos-containing locomotive parts.
- The district court previously dismissed the manufacturers’ state-law claims under Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp. (holding the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) preempts state design/failure-to-warn claims against manufacturers).
- KCSR moved for partial summary judgment arguing the LIA preempts Bouck’s FELA claims to the extent they arise from use of asbestos-containing locomotive parts.
- The court denied KCSR’s motion, holding Kurns does not extend to precluding FELA claims against an employer and that a jury could find KCSR breached its nondelegable duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the LIA preempt FELA claims against a railroad employer for asbestos exposure from locomotive parts? | Bouck: FELA claim survives; employer has nondelegable duty to ensure safe workplace and may be liable for exposure. | KCSR: Kurns shows LIA occupies the field for locomotive parts and precludes claims arising from use of those parts. | Denied — Kurns does not preclude FELA claims against employers; LIA does not displace employer liability under FELA. |
| If manufacturers are dismissed under LIA, does the worker lack any remedy for asbestos exposure from parts? | Bouck: Remedy lies against the employer under FELA; employer should bear duty to warn/protect and may seek contribution. | KCSR: Dismissal of manufacturers would leave employees without recourse for exposure from parts. | Rejected — employee can pursue FELA claim against employer; employer can seek contribution from others. |
| Would allowing FELA claims against employers using the same parts undermine federal uniformity in locomotive regulation? | Bouck: Allowing FELA suits does not disrupt federal uniformity; courts/juries resolving negligence is not the same as state-law fragmentation. | KCSR: Suits against employers would create disuniformity and conflict with LIA’s uniform regulation. | Rejected — potential judicial variation differs from state-law disuniformity; Congress did not limit FELA in this manner. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012) (LIA preempts state defective-design and failure-to-warn claims against manufacturers of locomotive parts)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (LIA/BIA supplement FELA by imposing duty to provide safe equipment)
- Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135 (2003) (FELA permits recovery from railroad whose negligence contributed to asbestos disease)
- Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926) (Congress intended to occupy the field of locomotive regulation)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011) (FELA relaxes causation standard; employer negligence need only play some part)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014) (distinguishes federal uniformity concerns from state-law fragmentation)
- Shenker v. Balt. & Ohio R.R., 374 U.S. 1 (1963) (railroad has nondelegable duty to provide employees a reasonably safe workplace)