945 F.3d 194
5th Cir.2019Background
- Three commercial-truck occupants were killed when the last truck in a four‑vehicle convoy stopped on Union Pacific’s private railroad crossing in rural Louisiana and a southbound train struck it. The train was traveling ~51 mph.
- The private gravel access road lies ~70 feet east of LA‑5, the crossing is ~85 feet west of a locked facility gate, and vegetation/curve/elevation reduce sight lines to ~350 feet for southbound trains.
- Union Pacific owned the crossing; after a 2008 collision and 2009 near‑miss it inspected the site and installed a stop sign and crossbuck/placard but did not add active devices (lights, gates, flaggers).
- Plaintiffs (families and intervenors) sued in diversity for negligent failure to provide adequate visual warnings and for negligent horn operation/training; the district court granted Union Pacific summary judgment.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, considered Louisiana duty‑risk law (including "dangerous trap" and "unique hazard" doctrines), and federal preemption under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to install adequate visual warnings at a private crossing | Union Pacific had a duty under Louisiana law to provide more than passive signs because the crossing presented unique hazards (limited sight, noise, proximity to gate, large trucks) | No extra‑statutory duty applies here; statutory regime governs public crossings and private crossings do not generally impose additional duties | Court: A duty could arise under "unique hazard" theory given site conditions, so duty issue could be for jury (duty exists on facts) |
| Breach of duty by using only passive warnings (stop sign/crossbuck) | Stop signs were insufficient and possibly counterproductive; active warnings likely would have prevented the crash | Signs complied with what Union Pacific reasonably provided after inspection; plaintiffs stopped at the sign and provided no evidence showing signage was inadequate | Court: Plaintiffs failed to present evidence that signage was insufficient to satisfy any duty or voluntarily assumed duty; no genuine dispute on breach |
| State‑law claims about horn patterns and training (operational rules) — preemption under FRSA | Union Pacific violated its internal horn‑sequence rules and failed to train engineers on horn effectiveness; such violations are actionable | FRSA and implementing regs subsume train horn operation; internal policies here were not adopted pursuant to a federal regulation so plaintiffs’ claims are preempted | Court: Claims about violating internal horn‑sequence rules or training are preempted because federal law governs horn operation and plaintiffs cannot rely on an internal rule made "pursuant to" a regulation |
| Horn volume (audibility) — compliance with federal minimum sound level | Horn was too quiet; witnesses didn’t hear it (or heard it briefly); Union Pacific’s tests were flawed | Federal regulation sets a minimum dB standard and Union Pacific’s tests showed compliance; plaintiffs offered no evidence showing noncompliance | Court: Plaintiffs produced no admissible evidence that the horn failed the federal audibility standard; summary judgment for Union Pacific affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 773 So. 2d 670 (La. 2000) (adopts Louisiana duty‑risk framework; recognizes liability at uniquely hazardous crossings despite statutory compliance)
- Davis v. Canadian Nat'l Ry., 137 So. 3d 11 (La. 2014) (private crossings generally lack extra‑statutory duties except for "dangerous trap")
- Rivere v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 647 So. 2d 1140 (La. App. 1994) (railroad liable for dangerous traps unless it took unusual precautions)
- Glisson v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 165 So. 2d 289 (La. 1964) (motorist presumed to have seen/heard what was observable)
- Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2005) (FRSA preemption of certain state negligence claims against railroads)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1993) (federal regulation may "substantially subsume" subject matter and preempt state claims)
- Rushing v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 185 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1999) (witness testimony about horn audibility can create a fact issue when compared to testing)
- Meador v. Apple, Inc., 911 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2018) (federal courts should not create novel state‑law recovery theories)