87 F. Supp. 3d 610
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Henderson sues Amtrak under FELA for injuries allegedly caused by Amtrak's negligence during on-track duties as a signal foreman.
- Amtrak moves in limine to bar evidence/argument about negligence claims supposedly precluded by FRSA and related regulations.
- Two accidents gave rise to claims; one resolved by settlement, trial on the second was scheduled for Feb. 23, 2015.
- Henderson planned to prove multiple negligence theories, including failure to provide a safe work place, warnings, staffing, safeguarding the site, training, and compliance with railroad safety regulations, via expert testimony on industry standards and internal rules.
- Amtrak contends FRSA preempts FELA claims not tied to FRSA regulations or internal Amtrak standards, effectively limiting proof to a single FRSA regulation (49 C.F.R. § 214.329).
- Henderson responds that FRSA preemption applies to state-law claims; federal FELA claims remain viable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FRSA preclude FELA claims? | Henderson argues FRSA preemption does not apply to FELA claims. | Amtrak contends FRSA preempts FELA claims not tied to FRSA regulations or internal standards. | FRSA does not preclude FELA claims. |
| Can FRSA regulations alone govern the standard of care in a FELA case and bar non-regulation evidence? | Henderson contends FRSA regulations do not set the exclusive standard of care for FELA suits. | Amtrak argues FRSA preemption would make regulations the exclusive standard of care. | FRSA regulations do not preempt or bar non-regulatory FELA evidence. |
| Does POM Wonderful influence interpretation of FRSA-FELA relationship? | Henderson aligns with POM Wonderful to avoid preemption of federal FELA claims by FRSA regulations. | Amtrak argues traditional FRSA preemption analyses suffice without POM Wonderful reasoning. | POM Wonderful supports non-preclusion of FELA claims by FRSA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court 1949) (FELA engaging broad federal question; liberal construction favored)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (U.S. 2014) (federal statutory interpretation; preemption of state requirements not extend to federal claims)
- Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (Supreme Court 1987) (RLA did not preclude FELA claims; federal remedies coexist)
- Gottshall v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 512 U.S. 532 (Supreme Court 1994) (FELA liberal construction and relaxation of negligence standard)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court 1993) (FRSA preemption of state law claims; uniformity goals)
- Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (preemption of FELA by FRSA regulation balancing uniformity concerns)
- Waymire v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2000) (FRSA preemption of FELA claims for excessive speed)
- Nickels v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., Inc., 560 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2009) (similar FRSA preemption reasoning for track-ballast regulation)
- Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court 1958) (FELA standard is federal and uniform; safety-centric duties)
- Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (Supreme Court 2002) (uniformity vs. state remedies; illustrative deference to federal schemes)
- Morant v. Long Island R.R., 66 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 1995) (negligence per se when violating safety statute aimed at railroad industry)
- Crane v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 395 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court 1969) (injustice of denying recovery; congressional authorization needed to alter remedies)
- Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R.R. Co. v. Schubert, 224 U.S. 603 (Supreme Court 1912) (FELA remedial purpose to facilitate recovery)
- Williams v. Long Island R.R. Co., 196 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1999) (relaxed standard for negligence under FELA)