156 F. Supp. 3d 1011
D. Neb.2015Background
- Madden, train conductor, was injured in a collision between a BNSF train and Antonov's truck at the CR 429 crossing near Anselmo, Nebraska.
- Madden sues Antonov and AV Transportation for negligence and BNSF under FELA for employer negligence.
- Crossing lacks active warning devices; crossing angle with tracks is disputed (approximately 35–50 degrees).
- Andersons were constructing a grain facility north of the tracks, planning a loop that could increase heavy truck traffic near the crossing.
- Antonov waited on Highway 2 shoulder; after slow train passed, he began crossing; Madden’s train horn sounded 18–19 seconds before impact.
- Court denies BNSF’s summary judgment motions on multiple theories, holding disputes of material fact remain regarding FRSA preemption, training duty, and coordination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRSA preclusion of FELA crossing-safety claims | Madden argues FRSA precludes FELA claims on crossing safety. | BNSF contends FRSA precludes FELA analogously to state-law claims. | FRSA does not preclude Madden’s FELA claim. |
| Duty to train for imminent crossing collisions | BNSF should train employees to respond to imminent hazards to reduce injuries. | No duty to train for every possible collision scenario; impractical and ineffective. | There is a factual dispute on training duty; claim survives summary judgment. |
| Impact of training/warning on injuries | Training or warnings could have allowed better bracing/response. | No evidence training would have reduced Madden’s injuries. | Issues of fact exist; training/warning theory not foreclosed. |
| Duty to coordinate with Andersons/public traffic | BNSF should coordinate with Andersons to warn drivers and provide safer crossing options. | No duty to regulate public road traffic at a public crossing. | Questions of fact preclude summary judgment on coordination theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waymire v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2000) (FRSA preemption of FELA claims debated)
- Easterwood v. CSX Transp., Inc., 507 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court 1993) (FRSA preemption framework for state-law claims)
- Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 690 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2012) (FRSA-FELA interaction; caution against inferential preclusion)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014) (interplay of federal statutes; complements vs. preclusion)
- Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (uniformity concerns with FRSA and safety regulations)
- Crewdson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 234 Neb. 631, 452 N.W.2d 270 (Neb. 1990) (duty to warn/guard crossings considerations)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court 1949) (FELA's liberal construction and remedial purpose)