Grade v. BNSF Railway Co.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7535
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- In Dec 2006, Grade’s car struck an unattended BNSF flatbed railcar at the B Street crossing in Hastings, Nebraska amid an ice storm and poor visibility.
- The railcar was part of a long string awaiting crew change and removal; Grade suffered serious arm injuries and vehicle damage.
- Grade pleaded eight Nebraska negligence claims against BNSF, including inadequate lookout, loss of control, failing to move/advertise the cars, and faulty warning devices.
- The district court granted summary judgment for BNSF, ruling several claims were FRSA preempted and others failed causation.
- Grade pressed preemption under FRSA for adequacy-of-warning claims and invoked the 2007 FRSA amendment; Grade also argued a local-condition savings clause.
- The Eighth Circuit upheld summary judgment, concluding warnings were preempted under Shanklin and the amendment did not alter those results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are adequacy-of-warning claims preempted by FRSA? | Grade contends Shanklin controls; 2007 amendment clarifies non-preemption. | BNSF argues preemption remains for warnings paid with federal funds. | Yes; preempted under Shanklin, unchanged by 2007 amendment. |
| Does the 2007 FRSA amendment affect Shanklin preemption for warnings? | Amendment nullifies Shanklin for ongoing federal standards. | Amendment clarifies only certain non-preemptive claims; Shanklin remains. | Amendment does not alter Shanklin preemption in this context. |
| Does the FRSA local-condition savings clause apply? | Fog and ice at the crossing are local conditions warranting heightened warnings. | Conditions are statewide and addressable by national standards; savings clause inapplicable. | Not applicable; claims preempted as to inadequacy of warnings. |
| Was Grade's causation failure fatal to blocking-crossing claims? | Blocking beyond ten minutes caused the accident and injuries. | No proximate cause shown linking extended blocking to Grade’s injuries. | Grade failed to prove proximate causation; claim failed on causation grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000) (FRSA preemption of inadequacy-of-warning claims when funded devices were installed)
- Duluth, Winnipeg, & Pac. Ry. Co. v. City of Orr, 529 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2008) (local-condition savings clause interpretation)
- Lundeen v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. (Lundeen II), 532 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2008) ( FRSA preemption discussions and amendment impact in Minot-related cases)
- Henning v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008) (warning-regulation framework and no ongoing federal standard of care)