Donald Guild v. Kansas City Southern Railwa
541 F. App'x 362
5th Cir.2013Background
- Property originally used by International Paper (IPC) adjoined a railroad mainline; IPC had an agreement with Illinois Central that the railroad owned the track segment from the switch to the right-of-way and could remove it with 30 days’ notice.
- Meridian Speedway later owned the mainline and Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (KCSRC) operated it; in 2006 the Guilds bought the property and operated a caboose museum served by a spur track connected by a switch.
- During mainline upgrades in 2006, KCSRC used the Guilds’ property temporarily and allegedly damaged the spur; KCSRC later notified the Guilds that the existing switch was incompatible with upgraded mainline standards and removed it in 2010.
- The Guilds sued in Mississippi state court seeking (1) injunctive relief compelling KCSRC to install/maintain an upgraded switch and reopen spur access, and (2) monetary damages for negligence for damage to the spur track; KCSRC removed and moved for summary judgment based on ICCTA preemption.
- The district court granted summary judgment for KCSRC without prejudice, finding ICCTA preempted the Guilds’ claims; the Guilds appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guilds’ claim to compel installation/maintenance of switch is preempted by ICCTA | Guilds argue state court can enforce property rights and compel access; claim is akin to possessory action (Franks) | KCSRC argues switch installation/maintenance implicates rail operations and falls within STB exclusive jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. §10501(b)(2) | Preempted: Court affirms dismissal of switch claim as ICCTA-expressly preempting construction/operation/abandonment of spur/switch tracks |
| Whether Guilds’ negligence claim for damage to spur track is preempted | Guilds argue state negligence law governs ordinary tort claims and only incidentally affects rail operations | KCSRC argues allowing negligence claims about railcar weight would burden rail operations and intrude on federal regulation | Not preempted (vacated and remanded): Court holds negligence claim is governed by state law and KCSRC failed to show specific burdens to support implied preemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks Inv. Co. LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 593 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes possessory/private-crossing claims from ICCTA-regulatory claims; only state laws that manage/govern rail transportation are preempted)
- Friberg v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 267 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (ICCTA preemption targets economic regulation of railroads such as speed, length, scheduling)
- Elam v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (simple negligence claims with incidental effects on rail operations are not necessarily preempted)
- Nat’l Cas. Co. v. W. World Ins. Co., 669 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. City of W. Palm Beach, 266 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) (ICCTA narrowly preempts regulatory measures that manage/ govern rail transportation)