Miller v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
65 A.3d 1006
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Miller bought Cherry Tree Hotel near Sandy Run Creek; floods occurred in 1996, 1999, 2001 causing basement/first-floor damage; bridge over Sandy Run Creek collapsed in 2001 and SEPTA replaced it; Miller alleged SEPTA’s maintenance of the 1912 bridge caused upstream flooding by acting as a choke point; Miller’s 2003 complaint asserted common law negligence and sought damages; trial court granted summary judgment holding FRSA preemption; appellate court affirmed.
- Evidence included expert opinions: Miller’s engineer claimed the 1912 bridge created a choke point and upstream silt worsened flooding; SEPTA relied on federal regulation § 213.33 and opposing expert who deemed the design sound.
- Court discussed three preemption theories (express, field, conflict) and focused on 49 U.S.C. § 20106(a)(2) and (b)-(c); cited Easterwood, Mastrocola, and Rooney as controlling precedents; concluded §213.33 preempts Miller’s state-law claim; saving clause failed because the state claim did not address an essentially local hazard compatible with federal regulation; the 2007 amendments do not salvage the claim.
- Court noted Wyeth v. Levine instructs starting with no-preemption presumption but did not overrule Easterwood; conclusion aligned with Mastrocola that preemption analysis focuses on subject matter, not remedy; dissent argues regulation does not cover bridges and that the Railroad Bridge Policy does not preempt state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FRSA preempt Miller’s state-law negligence claim? | Miller argues Congress did not intend broad preemption and local safety should be preserved. | SEPTA asserts §213.33 preempts the state tort claim. | Yes, preempted. |
| Are the saving clause conditions satisfied to save state law? | Saving clause allows state law if compatible with federal regulation and local hazard. | Saving clause not satisfied; the dual objectives of uniform regulation prevail. | No, saving clause does not save the claim. |
| Do the 2007 amendments to §20106 alter preemption outcome? | Amendments clarify non-preemption when federal regulation violated. | Amendments do not alter preemption analysis; the subject matter is still preempted. | No, amendments do not change result. |
| Is Wyeth controlling against Easterwood on preemption? | Wyeth suggests starting with presumption against preemption. | Wyeth does not overrule Easterwood; express preemption applies here. | Wyeth not controlling to overturn preemption. |
| Does Rooney support denial of preemption here? | Rooney supports state role in drainage and may undermine preemption. | Rooney is persuasive but distinguishable; here regulation covers the subject matter. | No, Rooney is persuasive but distinguishable; preemption stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1993) (express preemption analysis under §20106; subject matter governs preemption)
- Mastrocola v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 941 A.2d 81 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (saving clause does not preserve non-local safety claims)
- Rooney v. City of Philadelphia, 623 F.Supp.2d 644 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (district court applying §213.33 to drainage under/near roadbed; persuasive precedent)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (presumption against preemption; regulation does not automatically preempt state tort claims)
- Dooner v. DiDonato, 601 Pa. 209 (Pa. 2009) (state tort claims not preempted where no federal regulation conflict; supports state role in remedial tort law)