Noice v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2016 NMSC 32

Lenard E. Noice, a BNSF conductor, fell from a moving train and died; the train never exceeded the FRA speed limit for that class of track.
The Estate (Noice II, personal representative) sued BNSF under FELA alleging among other theories that BNSF negligently permitted excessive speed while Noice was on the locomotive exterior.
District court found triable facts on causation but held the FELA excessive-speed claim precluded because the train operated within the regulated speed limit and FRSA/49 C.F.R. § 213.9(a) precluded such claims.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding FRSA does not preclude a FELA excessive-speed claim.
The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether FRSA precludes the Estate’s FELA excessive-speed claim and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FRSA expressly precludes FELA excessive-speed claims	Noice: FRSA contains no express bar to FELA claims; FELA remains available	BNSF: FRSA (and FRA speed regs) should be read to displace FELA claims as to regulated speeds	Held: FRSA contains no express preclusion of FELA claims; absence of express language weighs against preclusion
Whether FRSA’s structure and purposes impliedly preclude FELA excessive-speed claims (i.e., irreconcilable conflict)	Noice: FELA and FRSA are complementary—FRSA sets uniform minimum standards; FELA provides worker-focused private enforcement and may supplement regulation	BNSF: Allowing FELA claims would undermine FRSA’s goal of national uniformity and effectively nullify FRA speed limits	Held: No irreconcilable conflict; statutes can coexist. Allowing FELA suits furthers railroad safety and does not defeat FRSA’s regulatory role; FELA claims are not precluded

United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188 (rule that when two statutes overlap, give effect to both if possible)
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (repeal by implication disfavored; statutes should be harmonized absent clear intent)
Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148 (narrowly construe implied repeals)
J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (repeals by implication are rare)
Kernan v. Am. Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 (FELA construed liberally to effect remedial purpose)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (FELA’s relaxed causation standard; remedial aims)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (FRSA/FRA speed regs preempt conflicting state tort claims re: speed limits)
Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (FELA is a federal question and applied uniformly)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (courts should not limit FELA by inference when reconcilable with other statutes)