875 F. Supp. 2d 893
N.D. Ind.2012Background
- In April 2009, Elaine Eubanks walked along Main Street in Elkhart, Indiana, reaching a crossing where five tracks intersected with a pedestrian island, waiting for the eastbound train to pass.
- After the eastbound train cleared, she began to cross, looking west for the westbound train and failing to look east, as the westbound train approached.
- The westbound train blew its horn and rang its bell; Eubanks was struck and severely injured between the tracks.
- She sued Norfolk Southern Railway Company and engineer David R. Meier, asserting five theories: unsafe crossing design, defective pavement, inability to hear horns at the crossing, improper horn signaling sequence, and failure to brake.
- NS and Meier moved for summary judgment, arguing federal preemption and lack of causation; plaintiff sought leave to file supplemental exhibits.
- The court granted supplemental exhibits and granted summary judgment for NS, finding preemption of three claims and no triable liability on the remaining theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal law preempts the crossing-design and safety claims. | Eubanks argues federal funds and FHWA standards leave room for state-law liability for an extra-hazardous crossing. | NS argues FRSA preempts state tort claims related to crossing design. | Preempted; federal regulation precludes state-law claims about crossing design hazards. |
| Whether federal law preempts the claim that the train operated too fast for conditions. | Speeding, even if under 60 mph limit, could be negligent under state law. | Speed is governed by federal regulation; state-law speed claims are preempted. | Preempted; train speed within federal limits, no state-law basis for negligence. |
| Whether federal law preempts the claim that horn signaling was inaudible due to crossing design or concurrent trains. | Inaudibility and horn pattern issues should support liability. | Horn design and signaling are controlled by federal rules; state claims preempted. | Preempted; federal horn regulations govern the issue. |
| Whether non-preempted claims (pavement condition, braking, improper horn signaling sequence) survive summary judgment. | These theories could be causally related to the accident. | Record shows no causation; expert and video evidence negate causation. | No genuine issue; NS entitled to judgment on these non-preempted theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2000) (preemption of state-law claims about crossing safety when federally funded upgrades exist)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1993) (federal regulation preempts state tort claims over track speed limits and design)
- Beal v. National RR Passenger Corp., 2006 WL 2095239 (N.D. Ind. 2006) (discussed as precedent on duty to brake or foreseeability; WL not used in citation list)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (summary-judgment standard; visual evidence can resolve issues)
- Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2011) (district courts may exercise discretion in Rule 56(d) responses)