2015 NMCA 054
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Lenard Noice (decedent) was a BNSF locomotive engineer who exited one locomotive and walked along a locomotive walkway while the conductor, John Royal, increased train speed from ~15–20 mph to ~55 mph; Noice disappeared from the second locomotive and was later found dead beside the tracks.
- Noice’s son sued BNSF under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) for negligence (and other claims), asserting theories including defective equipment, failure to hold a safety briefing, and that Royal’s speed increase created an unsafe condition.
- BNSF moved for partial summary judgment on the FELA negligence count and argued Noice’s speed-based theory was precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA); the district court granted summary judgment, concluding the only viable theory was excessive speed and that FRSA precluded such claims when conduct complied with FRSA speed regulations.
- On appeal, Noice argued FRSA does not preclude FELA claims and also contended factual disputes (excessive motion, safety meeting, Royal’s conduct) should have gone to a jury.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, found the FRSA preclusion argument was properly before the district court, and addressed whether FRSA precluded a FELA excessive-speed claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FRSA precludes a FELA negligence claim based solely on excessive speed | Noice: FRSA does not preclude FELA remedies for employees; statutes serve complementary purposes so FELA claims remain available | BNSF: Easterwood shows FRSA (and its speed regs) preclude excessive-speed claims, so Noice’s speed theory is barred | FRSA does not preclude FELA speed-based claims; FELA and FRSA should be construed harmoniously (reversed summary judgment) |
| Whether district court unfairly relied on preclusion when FRSA was not argued at hearing | Noice: court violated due process by deciding preclusion not discussed at hearing | BNSF: FRSA preclusion was briefed in motions and in limine; issue was in the record | Held for BNSF on procedural sufficiency — preclusion issues were presented below, so district court could consider them |
| Whether factual disputes (excessive motion, need for safety meeting, Royal’s timeliness) preclude summary judgment | Noice: these are disputed factual issues that should go to the jury | BNSF: No admissible record evidence creates material factual disputes on these points | Court: Noice failed to cite record evidence creating genuine disputes; court did not reach causation for speed theory but found other theories unsupported |
| Whether courts should harmonize federal statutes (FELA and FRSA) or allow FRSA to implicitly repeal FELA remedies | Noice: Congress did not clearly intend FRSA to displace FELA; repeal by implication is disfavored | BNSF: Uniformity requires applying FRSA speed rules to FELA claims to avoid inconsistent liability | Court: Harmonization favored; absent clear congressional intent, FRSA does not implicitly repeal FELA remedies for employees |
Key Cases Cited
- Waymire v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2000) (applies Easterwood to hold FRSA supersedes FELA for speed claims)
- CSX Transp. Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (FRSA speed regulations preclude state-law excessive-speed claims)
- Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (endorses Waymire: FRSA speed rules should apply to FELA claims for uniformity)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014) (statutory interpretation: absence of clear congressional intent to preclude concurrent remedies favors harmonizing statutes)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (discusses FELA’s remedial purpose to reduce railroad injuries)
- Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 690 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2012) (cautions against cutting down FELA by implication)