901 F.3d 868
7th Cir.2018Background
- Ronald Ward, a U.S. railroad employee, was injured when a locomotive seat collapsed while the train was in Ontario; FELA does not apply extraterritorially.
- Ward sued under state common law tort theories in federal court (consolidated actions), alleging violations of the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LIA) standards and related state-law negligence theories.
- District court dismissed Ward’s claims, holding the LIA preempted all state tort remedies for locomotive equipment injuries.
- The Seventh Circuit panel disagreed with the district court’s broad preemption reading: state-law tort claims may borrow federal LIA standards of care (negligence per se) even where FELA does not apply.
- Ward raised that federal‑standard‑borrowing theory in district court but did not press it on appeal; he pursued only failure-to-warn claims on appeal, which are preempted under Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the LIA preempts state-law tort claims that enforce federal LIA standards | Ward: States may enforce LIA-derived standards through state tort claims (negligence per se) even when FELA does not apply | Defendants: LIA (and its preemption precedents) displace any state-law remedy outside FELA or federal/regulatory enforcement | Court: LIA preempts state-law standards that add to or diverge from federal duties, but does not bar state causes of action that borrow and enforce LIA standards of care; such state claims are viable (absent waiver) |
| Whether Ward waived the state‑law theory of recovery that borrows LIA standards | Ward: Preserved the theory by raising it in district court and asking for appeal after district court definitively rejected it | Defendants: Ward failed to reassert the theory after the court’s first ruling and thus waived it | Court: Ward preserved the theory in district court (no waiver there), but he failed to press that theory on appeal and thus waived it for appellate review |
| Whether failure-to-warn claims survive LIA preemption | Ward: Failure-to-warn was a viable alternative theory | Defendants: Failure-to-warn claims here are preempted by LIA/Kurns when they would impose state duties beyond federal requirements | Court: Failure-to-warn claims on appeal were preempted and lacked merit |
| Whether district court’s dismissal should be reversed on preemption grounds | Ward: District court erred in broadly reading LIA preemption | Defendants: District court correctly applied preemption doctrine to dismiss all claims | Held: District court erred in part on scope of preemption, but judgment affirmed because Ward waived the viable theory on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012) (LIA preempts state common-law duties and standards of care directed to locomotive equipment)
- Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605 (1926) (LIA occupies the field of locomotive equipment regulation, precluding state legislation imposing additional requirements)
- Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v. Knoedler Mfrs., Inc., 781 F.3d 656 (3d Cir. 2015) (state-law claims may borrow LIA/regulatory standards of care; LIA does not preempt state common-law claims enforcing federal standards)
- New York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29 (1925) (FELA has no extraterritorial effect; lex loci delicti principles for injuries occurring abroad)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (state tort claims commonly adopt federal statutes/regulations as standards of care; such claims are not necessarily federal questions)
- Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984) (state-law remedies may vindicate federal safety duties even where federal regulatory authority exists)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (federal preemption doctrine does not automatically preclude state damages remedies premised on federal regulatory violations)