348 P.3d 1043
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Decedent, a BNSF locomotive engineer, exited his locomotive and walked between locomotives while the conductor (Royal) increased speed; video later showed Decedent disappeared from a second locomotive walkway and was found dead beside the tracks.
- Plaintiff (Decedent’s representative, Noice) sued BNSF under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) for negligence, alleging theories including excessive speed, failure to conduct a safety briefing, and defective equipment.
- BNSF moved for partial summary judgment on the FELA count and argued that any speed-based negligence claim was precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA); the district court granted summary judgment concluding the operative FELA theory was excessive speed and therefore precluded by FRSA.
- On appeal, Noice argued FRSA does not preclude FELA speed-based claims and also contended factual disputes existed about other negligence theories (safety briefing, Royal’s conduct).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding FRSA does not preclude a FELA claim based solely on excessive speed and finding Noice had not preserved or shown triable issues on the other theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FRSA precludes a FELA negligence claim based on excessive speed | Noice: FRSA does not preclude FELA; both statutes serve different, complementary purposes so FELA remedies remain available | BNSF: FRSA and its regulations fully occupy the field on speed, so speed-based claims (even under FELA) are precluded | FRSA does not preclude FELA speed-based claims; statutes construed harmoniously (reversed summary judgment) |
| Whether the district court deprived Noice of due process by deciding preclusion not argued at hearing | Noice: Preclusion was not addressed at summary-judgment hearing; decision violates due process | BNSF: FRSA preclusion was briefed multiple times (motion, replies, in limine) and raised in record | Held that FRSA preclusion was sufficiently briefed; due process argument fails |
| Whether factual disputes (excessive motion, missing safety meeting, Royal’s delay) preclude summary judgment on other negligence theories | Noice: Triable facts exist regarding excessive motion, need for safety briefing, and Royal’s actions | BNSF: No record evidence creating genuine disputes on those points | Court: Noice failed to point to record evidence creating genuine disputes; court need not consider abstract issues; those theories fail on summary judgment (except speed theory) |
| Whether FELA claims in state court must be adjudicated under federal procedural law | Noice: FELA should be governed by federal law | BNSF: State procedural rules apply in state court FELA suits | Court: State procedural rules govern in state forum; Rule 1-056 NMRA applies |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (FRSA regulations preempt state-law excessive-speed claims because the regulations occupy the subject of speed)
- Waymire v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2000) (applied Easterwood to hold FRSA superseded FELA excessive-speed claims)
- Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (endorsed Waymire to promote uniformity and preclude FELA excessive-speed claims)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014) (federal statutes with different protections are complementary; absence of clear congressional intent precludes finding one statute displaces remedies in the other)
- Earwood v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 845 F. Supp. 880 (N.D. Ga. 1993) (district court holding FRSA does not preclude FELA excessive-speed claims — persuasive for harmony approach)
- Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 690 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2012) (cautioning that FELA should not be narrowed by implication and supporting preservation of FELA remedies)