238 Cal. App. 4th 269
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Fair, a BNSF railroad employee, injured his back and knee throwing a switch in the Fresno yard in January 2011.
- Fair filed a FELA action in December 2011 alleging negligence; case tried in September 2013 with a verdict for Fair totaling $3,216,000.
- BNSF sought in limine and on appeal to preclude Fair’s FELA claim based on FRSA regulations governing track inspections.
- The trial court denied preclusion; the jury awarded damages for past and future economic and noneconomic losses.
- The court conducted a de novo review of FRSA preclusion, concluding FRSA does not preclude Fair’s FELA claim, then affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FRSA preclude Fair's FELA claim? | FRSA preemption applies to state law only, not to FELA claims. | FRSA regulations substantially subsume the subject matter and preclude the FELA claim. | FRSA does not preclude Fair's FELA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court 1993) (FRSA preemption of state-law claims based on safety regulations)
- Waymire, 218 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2000) (FRSA preemption of FELA claims; uniformity rationale)
- Lane, 241 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (preemption to achieve uniform liability under FRSA)
- Nickels, 560 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2009) (FRSA preclusion of FELA claims for ballast regulation reasons)
- Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 87 F. Supp. 3d 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (POM Wonderful persuasive for harmonizing FRSA and FELA)
- Noice v. BNSF Railway Co., Noice, 2015-NMCA-054 (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2015) (FRSA preemption not impliedly repealing FELA; harmonization favored)
- POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (Supreme Court 2014) (Lanham Act preclusion rejected when statutes complement each other)