970 F. Supp. 2d 807
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Crossing at East 23rd Road involves a two-track crossing with clear warning devices and an advance sign; the speed limit on Class IV tracks is federally set at 80 mph.
- Rasmusen, driving ~30 mph, entered the crossing despite visibility; the Amtrak train approached at 81 mph with two locomotives and nine cars, not braking prior to impact.
- Three generations of Rasmusen family members were in the car; Marilyn Rasmusen, her husband, and one grandchild died, others were seriously injured.
- Illinois Commerce Commission had ordered lights or stop signs at the crossing within 30 days prior to the accident; BNSF claimed no awareness of the order until after the crash.
- Plaintiffs contend multiple factors (sight obstructions, distractions, horn timing) contributed to the crossing’s unsafe nature; Defendants challenge the causal role of those factors and challenge expert methodologies.
- Plaintiff asserted claims including negligence, wrongful death, and Family Expense Act, against Amtrak, BNSF, and others; the court addresses Daubert motions and summary judgment on these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Loumiet's hazard findings | Loumiet's methods are FHWA-based and admissible. | Opinions not supported by record; some rely on conditions not present. | Loumiet's hazard opinions allowed for conditions present at the time; some speed-related opinions barred. |
| Admissibility of Beall's horn and speed opinions | Beall's train-safety expertise supports his opinions. | Some opinions rely on outdated or inapplicable rules and regulations. | Beall's opinions on braking and reasonableness admissible; horn pattern and speed-limit-based opinions barred; GCOR-based negligence opinion barred. |
| Summary judgment on extra hazard and ICC-order claims | Crossing was extra hazardous; ICC order compliance may create duty. | Crossing not extra hazardous; no proximate-cause link to ICC-order violation. | Question of extra hazard for jury; ICC-order claim dismissed; summary judgment granted on other negligence theories. |
| Proximate cause from excessive speed and braking | Small speed excess and failure to brake proximately caused the collision. | Federal speed limit preempts internal timetable; no proximate-cause link shown. | Excessive speed not proximate cause; failure to brake found but not proven to avoid collision; summary judgment on these theories granted. |
| Train horn timing as proximate cause | Horn timing was inadequate to warn sufficiently. | Horn sounded in compliance with federal regulations; conflicting eyewitnesses create fact issues. | Horn timing fact dispute for the jury; summary judgment not granted on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bassett v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 131 Ill.App.3d 807 (Ill. App. 1985) (extra hazard factors; jury determines required protection at crossing)
- Tucker v. New York, C. & St. L. R.R. Co., 12 Ill.2d 532 (Ill. 1957) (crossing conditions present at time of accident inform duty)
- Robertson v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 388 Ill. 580 (Ill. 1944) (duty to stop until it becomes apparent motorist will not stop)
- St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Pierce, 68 F.3d 276 (8th Cir. 1995) (federal preemption of internal speed limits in proximate-cause analysis)
- Dombeck v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. Ry. Co., 129 N.W.2d 185 (Wis. 1964) (speed as proximate cause requires showing it affected driver response)