955 F.3d 816
10th Cir.2020Background
- Robert Rabe, a long‑time ATSF pipefitter, worked in a car shop repairing Budd‑manufactured passenger cars; he was exposed to asbestos in pipe insulation and died of mesothelioma.
- Little (personal representative) sued Budd on state common‑law theories (negligence, strict liability, failure to warn).
- Budd moved to dismiss and for summary judgment arguing federal preemption under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) and the Safety Appliance Act (SAA).
- District court denied pretrial motions and summary judgment, finding disputed facts whether insulated steam pipes were locomotive appurtenances and that SAA governs only listed safety devices.
- At trial the parties stipulated Budd would not argue to the jury that the insulation was a safety appliance or locomotive part; jury returned verdict for Little.
- On appeal Budd renewed LIA and SAA preemption arguments; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the railcar‑as‑appurtenance theory was waived and SAA does not preempt claims about non‑listed devices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LIA preempts Little’s state claims by treating each passenger railcar as an appurtenance to the locomotive | Little: her claims target railcar equipment and are not LIA‑preempted | Budd: entire passenger railcars are locomotive appurtenances so LIA preempts state claims | Waived on appeal—Budd never advanced railcar‑as‑appurtenance below, so issue forfeited |
| Whether LIA preempts claims based on insulated steam pipes that connect to locomotive | Little: disputed facts show exposure included water/AC pipes not connected to locomotive | Budd: insulated steam pipes are locomotive appurtenances and preempt state law | Not preempted as a matter of law—district court record contained disputed facts; court affirmed denial of JMOL/SJ |
| Whether SAA preempts state‑law suits about non‑listed railcar safety devices (e.g., pipe insulation) | Little: SAA lists specific devices; non‑listed items remain subject to state law | Budd: SAA (or combined with LIA) occupies field of railcar safety, preempting state regulation of safety devices | SAA does not preempt claims concerning devices not listed in the statute; Atlantic Coast Line controls and forecloses broad field preemption |
| Whether LIA + SAA together create "trainwide" preemption covering all rail equipment | Little: no authority supports combining the statutes to occupy entire field | Budd: combining the Acts preempts state regulation of train equipment | Rejected—no precedent supports sweeping joint preemption; argument not persuasive/was not preserved below |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012) (describing broad preemptive scope of LIA)
- Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280 (1914) (SAA does not occupy field as to devices not listed in the statute)
- In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 822 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2016) (fact‑intensive inquiry whether steam lines were locomotive appurtenances)
- S. Ry. Co. v. Lunsford, 297 U.S. 398 (1936) (defining "part or appurtenance" concept for LIA analysis)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (lower courts must follow directly controlling Supreme Court precedent even if inconsistent with later lines)