Little v. Budd Co., 339 F. Supp. 3d 1202

Background

Plaintiff Nancy Little (individually and as personal representative) sued The Budd Company, alleging her father Robert Rabe was exposed to asbestos in Budd passenger railcar pipe insulation while working for ATSF (1951–1981) and died of mesothelioma in 2012.
Budd manufactured passenger railcars (1932–1987) with steam lines insulated by asbestos; Rabe also worked around other asbestos sources (water pipes, AC, valve packing, etc.).
Budd moved for summary judgment arguing federal preemption (Locomotive Inspection Act and Federal Safety Appliance Act) and that plaintiff’s negligence-per-se claim fails; plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on causation and certain defenses.
Court struck Paragraph 6 of Budd President Bastien’s declaration under Rule 37(c)(1) for failure to disclose him as a Rule 26(a)(1) witness (that paragraph concerned whether cars were designed to connect to locomotives).
On preemption, court denied Budd summary judgment: genuine issues exist whether the insulation/related pipes are "locomotive appurtenances" (LIA) and court held SAA preemption limited to appliances specifically listed in the statute, so SAA does not categorically preempt claims about pipe insulation.
Court granted summary judgment for Budd on plaintiff’s negligence-per-se claim because the statutes’ penalty provisions making manufacturers liable were enacted in 1988 and cannot be applied retroactively to conduct in the 1950s–1981.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to strike Bastien ¶6 (disclosure)	Bastien not disclosed under Rule 26; ¶6 lacks personal knowledge and should be excluded	¶6 harmless because Bastien was identified as records custodian and plaintiff could have anticipated reliance on business records	Court struck ¶6 under Rule 37(c)(1): nondisclosure prejudiced plaintiff and was not harmless
LIA preemption (are pipes/appliance "locomotive appurtenances")	Pipes/insulation may be non-appurtenances: evidence that steam generator cars or self-contained systems supplied steam; therefore no field preemption	Pipes tied to locomotives and fall within LIA’s occupied field; Budd relied on Bastien ¶6 for design/connection facts	Denied Budd SJ on LIA preemption: genuine factual disputes (evidence that steam generator cars/self-contained systems were used) preclude summary judgment
SAA preemption (does SAA occupy entire safety-appliance field?)	SAA preempts only appliances listed in statute; pipe insulation is not listed so no preemption	SAA preempts regulation of railcar safety appliances broadly (including unlisted items)	Denied Budd SJ on SAA preemption: court construes SAA as covering listed appliances; will not expand preemption to unlisted devices like pipe insulation
Negligence per se (reliance on LIA/SAA standards; manufacturer liability)	Alternative claim viable because statutes set federal standards	Penalty/standard provisions imposing liability on manufacturers post-date exposures; plaintiffs’ claim relies on standards that did not apply to manufacturers historically	Granted SJ for Budd on negligence-per-se: statute amendments (penalty/manufacturer liability) enacted in 1988 cannot be applied retroactively to conduct through 1981

Key Cases Cited

Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (field preemption under the LIA extends to locomotive design/construction/appurtenances)
Napier v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605 (scope of federal regulation over locomotive equipment)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of Ind., 236 U.S. 439 (SAA preemption applies to subject matter specifically regulated by the statute)
Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280 (SAA does not preempt state regulation where federal statute does not address the device)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (tests for retroactive application of statutes)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 (factors for Rule 37 exclusion analysis)